informal document wp.5/ge.2 (2015) no. 1
TRANSCRIPT
Economic Commission for Europe
Inland Transport Committee Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics
Group of Experts on Euro-Asian Transport Links
Fourteenth session Yerevan, 26–27 October 2016 Item 2 of the provisional agenda Identification of cargo flows on the Euro-Asian transport links
Identification of cargo flows on the Euro-Asian transport links
Preliminary informal version of the paper just for information
Transmitted by the the "Scientific and Research Institute of Motor Transport"
(NIIAT)
Informal document WP.5/GE.2 (2015) No. 1
Distr.: General 15 October 2016 English only
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Draft
EURO-ASIAN TRANSPORT LINKAGES
Phase III
Expert Group Report
Geneva
2016
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EURO-ASIAN TRADE ROUTES AND FREIGHT FLOWS
I.1. Economics and trade current situation in EATL Region
I.1.1. General overview: world trade and economics
I.1.2. European region
I.1.3. Asia and Pacific region
I.1.4. CIS member-states
I.2. Euro-Asian trade routes
I.2.1. Trade routes general development
I.2.2. Main trade partners
I.2.3. Main commodity groups
I.2.4. Container freight
I.3. Euro-Asian transport flows
I.3.1. Maritime routes situation
I.3.2. EATL main routes general overview
I.3.3. EATL Railway routes and railway transport
I.3.3. EATL Road routes and road transport
I.3.5. EATL Inland waterways and ports
I.3.6. Air routes and main airports
I.4. EATL related sea ports and their hinterland connections
I.4.1. Sea ports role in EATL corridors
I.4.2. Port statistics and trends
I.4.3. Most important sea ports identification
I.4.4. Logistic centers and dry ports in the EATL system
1.5. Comparative analysis of the duration and expenses of different modes of transport between
Europe and Asia on selected Euro-Asian routes
3
II. CURRENT INITIATIVES, PROJECTS AND STUDIES IN EATL REGION
II.1. Overview of international studies, programmes and initiatives on Euro-Asian transport
links development
II.1.1. UN GA
II.1.2. UN ECE
II.1.3. UN ESCAP
II.1.4. UN OHRLLS
II.1.5. UNCTAD
II.1.6. UN SPECA
II.1.7. European Union
II.1.8. Eurasian Economic Union
II.1.9. Silk Road Economic BELT Initiative
II.1.10. OSCE
II.1.11. OSJD
II.1.12. BSEC
II.1.13. TRACECA
II.1.14. ECO
II.1.15. GUAM
II.1.16. World Bank
II.1.17. ADB and CAREC Program
II.1.18. IDB
II.1.19. EBRB
II.1.20. EDB
II.1.21. IRU
II.1.22. UIC
II.1.23. Global Partnership for Sustainable Transport (GPST)
II.2. Most important national level programmes and projects
II.3. Container block-trains in the EATL trade
4
II.3.1. Block trains role in the Euro-Asian logistics
II.3.2. Block trains: case descriptions
II.3.3. Pre-conditions for effective block-trains operation
III. MAIN OBSTACLES HAMPERING THE EURO-ASIAN TRANSPORT LINKAGES
DEVELOPMENT
III.1. General overview
III.2. Border Crossing Points as bottlenecks
III.3. Barriers concerning goods transported
III.4. Barriers concerning border crossing technologies and procedures
III.5. Road transportation specific barriers
III.6. Rail transportation specific barriers
III.7. Intermodal transportation specific barriers
III.8. Political situation
III.9. Mismatch of public and private interests
IV. EATL: LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
5
INTRODUCTION
History and background
The Euro-Asian Transport Links (EATL) project is a part of long-term collaborative work
carried out during recent decades by international institutions and particular countries of the
Eurasia to improve the conditions for trade and socio-economic development on the continent.
At the moment EATL is supported by 38 countries: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Mongolia, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Serbia, Spain, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
EATL started in 2002 as a joint undertaking between the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe (UNECE) and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific (UNESCAP).
Phase I of the project (2002-07) had selected the main Euro-Asian road, rail and inland water
transport routes, transshipment points and ports. Projects were prioritized in order to improve the
selected routes. The first analysis of physical and non-physical obstacles hampering the trade via
the surface Euro-Asian routes was undertaken. An Expert Group established under the Phase I
proved to be the effective cooperation platform for the coordinated development of coherent
Euro-Asian inland transport links.
Phase II of the EATL project (2008 to 2013) was coordinated by UNECE. Within this phase the
Expert Group identified nine rail and nine road corridors (EATL corridors) which should be
considered as principle transport links between Europe and Asia. At the same time 311 projects
linked with the EATL corridors were proposed by the participating countries. The projects have
been evaluated from the standpoint of their relevance and importance for international traffic and
their value to connect Asia and Europe. The assessment of transport investment needs along
EATL routes at the multi-county level was undertaken which formed the basis of the updated
EATL Investment Plan. Administrative impediments to transport and trade were also identified.
Among the most valuable Phase II results the following should be noted:
- analysis of the Euro–Asian railway links in comparison to maritime transport that could be used
as anchors for further railway reforms to improve railway services for trade within the continent;
- comparison of nine door-to-door transport scenarios: time-wise and cost-wise. In five out of the
nine scenarios, rail transport performs better than maritime for both the cost and time. In all nine
scenarios, rail transport performs better than the maritime in terms of time;
- the transport and border-crossing facilitation review and analysis that offers concrete examples
and highlights certain specific issues to be addressed;
- SWOT analysis of the EATL corridors.
Finally, the Phase II report lists a number of recommendations in the areas of infrastructure
development, facilitation and sectorial policies. The Study argues that well-functioning EATL
corridors, efficient customs transit regimes, the implementation of international trade and
6
transport conventions, elimination of rent-seeking as well as the overall improvement of
transport and logistics services can shorten the economic distances between EATL countries.
Within Phase II UNECE also created and made freely available the Geographical Information
System (GIS) interactive application that gives access to the database related to the EATL
corridors. UNECE is ready to maintain this database in collaboration with the participating
governments with the intention to help the governments and the international institutions to
coordinate and accelerate their collaborative investment activities.
The Second EATL Ministerial Meeting (26 February 2013) endorsed the Phase II final report
and supported to the next phase of the project in its Joint Declaration.
Main goals of the project
The Euro-Asian Transport Links project is aimed at three main interconnected goals, or three
project domains:
1) Developing the Euro-Asian transit. This aspect of work is focused on providing conditions
for increasing volumes of Euro-Asian trade via overland routes, primarily railway. The basic
idea is to benefit from potentially shorter travel time - in comparison with the maritime routes -
that would attract the time-sensitive segment of Euro-Asian trade. Since this idea was formulated
during the St. Petersburg International Euro-Asian Conference on Transport in 1998, much had
changed in Eurasian trade and transport. The trade volumes had significantly increased as well as
the capacity of container ships operating on Eurasian routes. That, in turn, led to lower freight
rates and the prospects of overland delivery seemed to be very bad. At the same time, the idea of
intercontinental container trains that once looked as a very distant prospect had become the
everyday reality for many shippers who now see these services as an attractive alternative to sea
transport. The reasons for that are not only the growth of high-value commodities share and the
“slow steaming” concept adopted by shipping lines. It should be stated that the efforts of the
EATL countries - and other states interested in Eurasian links development - had really improved
the conditions for overland trade.
Experts agree that the potential of Eurasian transit is not fully utilized and that the work on its
development should be continued.
2) Addressing the challenge of the landlockness. Thirteen of the EATL area states -
Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan –
belong to the “family” of the landlocked countries that face special challenges associated with lack
of direct territorial access to the sea, remoteness and isolation from world markets. For these
countries, fragmentation of the supply chain in a poorly regulated transit process can add up to50
per cent to transport costs between a landlocked country and a nearest foreign port. According to
the World Bank, landlocked countries’trade and incomes lag far behind those of transit
countries and the global average.
The international community constantly pays special attention to needs of landlocked countries.
The Almaty Programme of Action: Addressing the Special Needs of Landlocked Developing
Countries within a New Global Framework for Transit Transport Cooperation for Landlocked
and Transit Developing Countries, adopted in 2003, reflected the strong commitment of all
actors to address the special development needs and challenges faced by landlocked developing
countries and to promote their effective integration into the global economy through the
7
implementation, inter alia, of specific actions in the areas of fundamental transit policy issues,
infrastructure development and maintenance, trade facilitation.
Currently the Vienna Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries for the
Decade 2014-2024 is under implementation. This innovative, holistic and results-oriented 10-
year programme is based on renewed and strengthened partnerships to accompany landlocked
developing countries. This Programme envisages individual and concerted efforts by the
organizations and bodies of the United Nation system, relevant international organizations, etc.,
who are invited to give priority to requests for technical assistance and capacity-building support
from landlocked developing countries in a well-coordinated and coherent manner, within their
respective mandates.
Some of the specific goals and objectives of the Vienna Programme, such as promotion of
efficient and cost-effective access to and from the sea by all means of transport, reducing trade
transaction costs and transport costs and improvement international trade services, development
of adequate transit transport infrastructure networks and complete missing links connecting
landlocked developing countries, etc. – are fully consistent with the EATL project priorities.
3) Improving the environment for regional trade between the EATL countries, primarily –
in the Central Asian area. The region had recovered from the transitional recession in the late
1990s, and during the 2000s emerged as one of the most dynamic economic regions in the world.
Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan became WTO members in 1998, 2013 and 2015
respectively.
The region started the previous decade with strong links with Europe and important ties with the
CIS. During the last decade, China has emerged as an important trading partner for Central Asia,
particularly in natural resources while ties with Turkey have also intensified.
However, trade in the region is still below potential, with limitations in connectivity, market
access, limited bilateral engagement and difficult trade and transport facilitation. Further
development is limited by transport-geographical factors as well as by the institutional issues.
Despite a long history as a center of global trade, the economic structure of Central Asia is
currently characterized by low economic density and long distances.
It should be noted that the average level of economic development of the Central Asian countries
makes the large-scale infrastructure investments very burdensome for their national budgets. In
the context of the current economic situation, this fact becomes even more important.
At the same time, trade policy regimes throughout Central Asia are very uneven and often far
from best international practice. They “…vary from liberal in the Kyrgyz Republic, to fairly
liberal in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan and to quite restrictive in Uzbekistan. While tariffs are not
particularly restrictive by global standards, tariff structures are complex and changes are not
transparent or predictable and non-tariff measures are extensive and pervasive [18].
That is why adjusted “point-focused” investment projects undertaken together with institutional
improvements seems to be the principal vector of connectivity development in the region.
Scope of work
This report presents the results of Phase III of the EATL project coordinated by the UNECE. The
principle aim of Phase III is to identify the measures that will make the EATL overland links
operational.
8
The Report focuses on the following issues:
- “snapshot” overview and the analysis of the current situation in transport and trade along EATL
routes;
- review of current studies, programmes and initiatives on development Euro-Asian transport
links recently undertaken at both national and international levels;
- identifying the main transport, trade, border-crossing, customs and transit obstacles hampering
transportation and trade along EATL routes;
- developing the recommendations to overcome the identified barriers and further develop the
trade across the EATL area.
The results of Phase III of the EATL project should create a platform for policymakers and
operators to improve the situation and enhance opportunities for the overland transport in the
future. The goal is to analyze the situation, identify obstacles and opportunities, propose
solutions and encourage stakeholders to harmonize actions and act jointly along the EATL
routes. It is also expected to boost political support for often painful reforms in the transport
sector, border crossing facilitation, as well as in the management of large-scale transport
investment programs.
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General description of the project
The Euro-Asian Transport Links (EATL) project is a part of long-term collaborative work
carried out during recent decades by international institutions and particular countries of the
Eurasia to improve the conditions for trade and socio-economic development on the continent.
The EATL initiative is aimed at three main interconnected goals, or three project domains:
- developing the Euro-Asian transit
- addressing the challenge of the landlockness
- improving the environment for regional trade between the EATL countries.
The project was undertaken in three phases.
Phase I (2002-07) had selected and prioritized the main Euro-Asian road, rail and inland water
transport routes, transshipment points and ports. The first analysis of physical and non-physical
obstacles hampering the trade via the surface Euro-Asian routes was undertaken.
Phase II (2008 to 2013) identified nine rail and nine road corridors (EATL corridors) which
should be considered as principle transport links between Europe and Asia. Main projects linked
with the EATL corridors were proposed by the participating countries.
The principle aim of Phase III is to identify the measures that will make the EATL overland links
operational. The report contains:
- the overview of the current situation along EATL routes,
- the analysis of the main transport, trade, border-crossing, customs and transit obstacles
hampering transportation and trade along EATL routes;
- the recommendations to overcome the identified barriers and further develop the trade across
the EATL area.
General economic and trade situation
The current financial crisis is influencing the global economy and trade sharply and probably
will for a long time stay as the dominating external factor. Because of that expected growth of
international trade can’t be considered as the main driver for Euro–Asian transport flows and
transport links.
As regards the continental Euro-Asian links, the crisis situation has its negative impact in several
aspects:
a) the general slow-down of transport demand
b) decreasing of the “critical mass” of traffic in landbridge corridors to keep the transport
services across them sustainable
c) limitations of the investment potential for infrastructure projects implementation
10
d) growing gap between the shipping rates and the railway rates (which is one of the main
disadvantages of the Euro-Asian landbridge).
At the same time, the current situation has some potential opportunities for the EATL transport
routes development. A portion of time-sensitive transit can be redirected through inland EATL
routes due to “slow steaming” introduction on the maritime routes. Besides that, such events as
the start of ”One Belt – One Road” Initiative, Creation of the Customs Union between the
Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan, accession of the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and
Kazakhstan to WTO improve the general political-economic climate across the EATL area.
Continental Eurasian links competitiveness conditions
Maritime transport is the dominating mode in the Euro-Asian trade. There are certain factors that
make its market position stronger: slow steaming introduction, shipping alliances development
and flexible tariff policy.
For objective reasons the Euro-Asian land bridge likely will never compete in volume with
maritime routes. But it may well establish itself as a complement to shipping services increasing
the reliability of high-value and time-sensitive supply chains.
The continental Euro-Asian transport network transport system is mainly already formed. The
main routes are demonstrating the practical capability of expensive and time-sensitive cargoes
delivery serving as a complement to maritime routes.
EATL transport routes combine the functions and features of different types of transport
corridors: transport and trade transit corridors, access corridors and developing corridors. This
gives wide development opportunities to EATL routes as the instrument of regional trade and
development.
Competition of transport corridors on the Euro-Asian continent is not about the simple choice
between transport routes and/or transport modes. It is the competition of logistic decisions based
on intermodal services and value-added services and focused at the needs of particular supply
chains. Main supply chains requirements are regular services, high punctuality, flexible costs,
value added services availability, delivery speed appropriate for certain types of cargo. These
requirements do not apply to particular sections of Euro-Asian routes, but to entire transport-
logistic chains.
Decision making in supply chains, in particular – choosing the routes and modes - is made
usually not by shippers themselves but by logistic operators: freight forwarders, 3 PL –
providers, etc., who combine the understanding of the needs of particular supply chain with deep
knowledge of transportation market and ability to put together the interests of numerous market
players: carriers, terminal operators, infrastructure owners, etc.
Considering that, any transport route within the Eurasian continent will attract traffic and trade
only being evaluated in the context of supply chains competition. No political decisions or
investment projects developed beyond this context will be successful in this sense. For the same
reasons the attempts to bind the freight flows within the corridors to particular fixed routes,
points or to selected transport modes seem counterproductive.
11
Of course, there is no need to mention that further development of EATL continental links needs
upgrading the infrastructure and elimination the non-physical barriers influencing the trade and
transport flows.
Comparison of maritime and overland transit routes
Comparative analysis of maritime and overland routes connecting Europe and Asia is undertaken
constantly in numerous studies in order to:
- demonstrate the principle advantages of particular overland transit corridors;
- choose the most competitive overland route among several options;
- evaluate the volumes of cargo that can be attracted to the overland routes, and so on.
Within the report several examples of the sea and overland routes comparative analysis are
given, in particular:
- the upgraded fragment of the analysis undertaken during Phase II of the EATL research;
- the study undertaken by the Russian Centre for Economic and Financial Research at the New
Economic School (CEFIR);
- the research provided by PLASKE – freight forwarding company involved into the Euro-Asian
intermodal container transportation;
- the Eurasian Development Bank study.
The analysis shows that there are segments of undisputed “maritime domination”, but under
certain conditions regular railway overland transit can be attractive to shippers. In the current
situation competitive railway services in EATL transit corridors can develop under the following
conditions:
a) location of Asian terminal points in North-Western China
b) location of European terminal points in Eastern Europe and
c) existence of guaranteed flow of high-value and time-sensitive cargo (automotive parts,
electronics, etc.) from one shipper or a limited group of “anchor” shippers as a basis for
sustainable regular service. Besides, the service should be better operated not by pure railway
carrier but by market-oriented logistic operator experienced in design of transport-logistic
chains.
Railway transport.
Railway transport should play the leading role within the EATL transport links, primarily, in the
sector of intermodal services. To achieve that, the railways should:
- widely cooperate with freight forwarders, terminal operators, trucking companies, logistic
providers;
12
- offer cost-based competitive tariffs and have the opportunity to change them according to the
market situation;
- be flexible in routes and schedules choice;
- cooperate internationally to provide long-haul services.
All this needs a liberalized market-oriented environment across the entire international railway
routes. Such an environment can be created in the course of the railway structural reforms.
The EATL area is the sphere of the railway reforms that seem necessary to make overland routes
effective and competitive. In different groups of EATL countries the reforms are developing
according to different models and have different pace.
The first group of countries - Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Spain - is formed by the
EU member states which follow the EC railway reform directives also known as EC railway
packages.
The second group is formed by the EATL countries that have expressed their intention to join the
EU: Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro,
Serbia, and Turkey. Being within the Stabilization and Association Process which precedes the
country’s accession to the European Union they are also developing their railway structural
policy according to the principles of the EC railway packages.
The third group of countries contains the former republics of the USSR: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belorussia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. They, in turn, can be separated according to the
achieved reforms progress:
- countries that have made certain progress in reforms developing the “Russian” reform model
that is not alike neither “European” nor “American” one: Russian Federation and Kazakhstan;
- countries, where reforms are widely discussed and some legal acts are adopted, although
practical steps seem to be moderate: Ukraine and Uzbekistan;
- countries, where reforms had not been even seriously planned: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Kyrgizstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Georgia, Turkmenistan.
Group four includes Asian countries that do not belong to neither of the previous three groups.
They are characterized by completely different situation in the railway industry and railway
reforms: Afghanistan, China, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan.
Whatever model is chosen, the market transformations of the railway industry should be among
the main priorities for EATL countries.
Road transport
It can be assumed that the role of road transport will grow in the most of the EATL countries
following the demand for high quality and flexible logistic services.
13
The road transport within the EATL corridors should be harmonized with railway services and
complete them rather than directly compete with rail. In particular, the following main spheres
look reasonable:
- short-run cross border trade;
- long haul transportation on the lanes where railway links do not exist or can’t provide effective
services for certain commodities (perishable, expensive, etc.);
- “road section” of intermodal rail-road transport service. This section connecting the consignor
(consignee) and intermodal terminal or logistic center can be hundreds or even thousands
kilometers long.
The last option is the most important one from the point of view of logistic supply chains
transport provision and improving the competitiveness of EATL links.
For effective long-haul trucking it is important to provide the even weight/length limitations for
road transport along the main EATL routes. Besides that, the option of the long/heavy road
vehicles was analyzed. It seems useful to use the experience of numerous countries of opening
certain routes with low traffic density and appropriate profile for road trains which could
substantially increase the efficiency of road transportation in the EATL region.
Sea ports
According to the contemporary logistic approach, sea ports should not be analyzed or developed
as isolated units. Development plans should consider also the port hinterland connections and the
infrastructural objects located in the hinterland and directly linked to sea ports (logistic centers,
dry ports, inland intermodal terminals). Such an approach should be used while developing
national transport policies and infrastructure development plans, as well as in the regional
documents adopted by EATL countries.
The analysis showed that the most important sea ports rom the point of view of the EATL system
development are ****
These ports have a relatively high throughput, demonstrate good progress in throughput during 5
recent years and/or provide direct ocean access on the foreland side.
Logistic centers and dry ports
Logistic centers are considered to be the mandatory components of logistic infrastructure
carrying on numerous functions in the supply chains.
Logistic centers developed within the EATL network should become the modern market-
oriented nodes of supply chains improving the competitiveness of the entire EATL system
carrying on the following functions:
- acting as the points of local integration/distribution of goods in particular areas;
- serve as effective warehousing zones directly connected to transport services;
14
- being points of smooth transshipment between rail and road (as well as between different
railway links) within intermodal transport services;
- act as platforms for industrial zones linked transport-logistic network;
- provide the possibility for value-added services execution within the supply chains;
- being located nearby the borders – provide infrastructure for effective border check procedures;
- being located on the connection points of different rail gauges – give opportunity to combine
boogies exchange or freight transshipment with intermediate warehousing and/or value-added
services.
Main obstacles hampering the Euro-Asian transport linkages development
The existence of high-level transport infrastructure – railways, roads, inland waterways - is a
necessary, but not a sufficient condition for efficient and competitive transport routes serving the
trade lanes. Numerous obstacles and bottlenecks along transport routes occur disrupting the
traffic and goods flows. These obstacles can be divided into physical and non-physical barriers.
Non-physical barriers seem to be the main problem for Eurasian linkages especially in the region
of the Central Asia. Unlike Europe, this region is characterized by a “spaghetti bowl” of
international organizations, initiatives, programs and projects. Obligatory border procedures at
numerous national borders do not make the situation easier. This leads to very high level of legal
and administrative fragmentation characteristic of transport routes and trade lanes in the region.
The obstacles hampering the Eurasian trade and transport manifest themselves primarily at the
border crossing points. The main non-physical barriers concern border crossing technologies and
procedures (inadequate infrastructure, process inefficiencies), transported goods (Customs
procedures, Export and import documents) and specific transport modes. “Political” issues
caused by international or domestic political conflicts and related to unclear or inconsistent
transport and trade policy are also among the barriers across the Eurasian trade.
Main recommendations
The SWOT-analysis of the EATL transport communications was developed which, in turn, gave
the opportunity to create the “EATL Roadmap to 2030”. The roadmap is designed in the form of
“Challenges – Opportunities – Solutions” matrix.
The principle solutions indicated in the matrix are put down in the form of the recommendations
in the following spheres:
- policies;
- facilitation, procedures, and institutions;
- infrastructure development.
15
EATL seems to be the most comprehensive of all initiatives aimed at facilitation of trade and
transportation across the Eurasian region. Thus it seems reasonable to continue the activities
under the EATL “umbrella” in the format that will be found appropriate by the EATL countries.
The main recommendations in the policy sphere are formulated as follows:
Continue the activities within the EATL project in co-ordination with other similarly
focused initiatives
Analyzing and dissemination of best decisions and models in the sphere of international
trade and transport
Improve the monitoring and high-level coordination of regional initiatives, programs and
projects
Develop co-operation at the business level together with intergovernmental cooperation
Encouraging development of the freight-forwarding and high level logistic providers
segment
Put railway reforms among highest policy priorities
During the crisis times high-scale infrastructure investments seem to be a serious burden for
many EATL countries. That is why institutional reforms and trade facilitation should be the
leading priority in comparison with infrastructure projects
The main recommendations in the sphere of facilitation, procedures and institutions are
formulated as follows:
Movement towards the universal legal regimes and administrative procedures across the
Eurasian area based on best international practices
Introduction of best international practices in new-adopted trade and transport legislation
Inter-harmonizing provisions of regional and bilateral agreements
Developing institutions and procedures facilitating the long-haul container trains
operation and related activities
Paying special attention to procedures accelerating trade and transport operations
Introduction of best international experience in newly adopted railway legislation
To date, the EATL transport network has been very nearly formed and proved its efficiency foe
certain trade lanes and commodities. Numerous initiatives, programmes and projects are
undertaken to improve the infrastructure in the EATL region. It seems reasonable to focus the
efforts on coordination, standardizing of infrastructure parameters and implementing the most
effective “point-focused” projects.
16
The main recommendations in the sphere of infrastructure development are formulated as
follows:
Eliminating bottlenecks and missing links on the potentially most effective overland
transit routes and trade routes in the EATL area
Encouraging introduction of public-private –cooperation and other market-oriented forms
of infrastructure projects financing
Coordinating of infrastructure programs and projects. Developing the “system approach”
to infrastructure programs developing the transport and logistic infrastructure in the
interests of the entire economy
Advanced development of railway and logistic infrastructure providing effective
container transportation
Paying special attention to infrastructure projects providing time-effective transportation
Introduction of effective mechanisms of railway infrastructure development in reform
programs
17
I. EURO-ASIAN TRADE ROUTES AND FREIGHT FLOWS
I.1 Economics and trade current situation in EATL Region
I.1.1. General overview: world trade and economics
The 2008–2009 financial crisis had significantly influenced the global economy and trade.
According to the WTO, the crisis brought about a 12 per cent drop in the volume of world trade
in 2009, which was the sharpest decline recorded in more than 70 years.
Like global economic activity, international trade remains subdued. Between 2012 and 2014, the
rate of growth of world merchandise trade (by volume) oscillated between 2 and 2.6 per cent
(figure 1.2). These growth rates are significantly below the average annual rate of 7.2 per cent
recorded during the 2003–2007 pre-crisis period.
World trade growth remained modest in 2015 following three years of weak expansion. Annual
increases in merchandise trade in volume terms were very small in that period, measuring just
2.5 per cent in 2014, 2.5 per cent in 2013, and 2.2 per cent in 2012. The exports of developing
and emerging economies grew faster than those of developed countries in 2014, 3.1 per cent in
the former and 2.0 per cent per cent in the latter. Meanwhile, imports of developing countries
grew more slowly than those of developed economies, 1.8 per cent compared to 2.9 per cent.
According to UNCTAD, in 2015-2016 merchandise trade remains largely insufficient to provide,
by itself, a significant stimulus to economic growth.
To be completed
18
Table 1.1. Export and import volumes of goods, selected regions and countries, 2011-2014
(annual percentage change)
Source:UNCTAD, 2015. Trade and development report
Figure 1.1. World trade by volume, January 2005 – May 2015
(indexed numbers, 2005 = 100)
Source: UNCTAD, 2015. Trade and development report
19
Figure 1.2.Growth in volume of world merchandise trade and real GDP, 2007-14 (annual
percentage change)
Source: WTO, World Trade Report, 2015
The analysis shows that current financial crisis is influencing the global economy and trade
sharply and probably will for a long enough period stay as the dominating external factor.
Because of that expected growth of international trade can’t be considered as the main driver for
Euro–Asian transport flows and transport links, as it was during Phase I and Phase II of the
EATL Project.
I.1.2. European region
To be completed
20
I.1.3. Asia and Pacific region
To be completed
I.1.4. CIS countries
To be completed
EATL countries general overview
The geographical space covered by the EATL routes stretches from the North and Baltic Sea in
the North to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean in the South, Western Europe in the west
and the coast of the Pacific Ocean in the east. Of the countries that currently participate in the
EATL project, 11 belong to Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). These countries are the
three Eastern European states - Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine, the five Central Asian states -
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, two Caucasus republics -
Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Russia. The EATL routes also cross four countries that do not
belong to the CIS, China, Georgia, Iran, and Turkey, and connect those CIS and non-CIS
countries to EU-28 countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Mongolia.
This section does not cover all EATL project member countries. Only those countries, which an
EATL route crosses, have been described including all CIS countries, China, Georgia, Iran and
Turkey.
The economies of these 15 countries differ in size and industry composition Most of the CIS
countries have gone through transition from centrally planned to market economies, but the
transformation processes are uneven, and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are only slowly opening
up their markets.
With Tajikistan’s accession to the WTO in March 2013 eight CIS countries are now WTO
members and five are observer members (see table *). Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia form a
Customs Union that is the central pillar of the single economic space of the Eurasian Economic
Union (EEU or EAEU), and Kyrgyzstan and Armenia have signed accession agreements to this
Customs Union. CIS countries have also signed multiple bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements, such as the CIS Free Trade Agreement (CISFTA), with each other granting
preferential treatment to their goods (see table 1.2).
Several of the 12 EATL CIS countries are “oil exporters”, meaning that energy commodities,
such as oil or natural gas, account for a large share of their total exports. China, Russia and
21
Turkey are the biggest economies in the EATL network. In 2013, their combined GDP of
12’157’254 million US$ represents 92% of the total economic activity of EATL countries.
CIS countries have seen a continued growth of their economic output in the past years. The
Kyrgyz economy has grown by 10.5 per cent from 2010 to 2014, Turkmenistan by 10.2 percent
and Uzbekistan by 8 per cent during the same period. The Caucasus and Central Asian (CCA)
countries that are not “oil-exporters” are expected to have the strongest growth.
As can be seen from table 1.1, Russia is not only the biggest economy of the CIS in terms of
GDP but also in terms of merchandise trade. Russia’s exports accounted for 523’294 million
US$ in 2013, while Tajikistan only exported goods with a value of 1,163 million US$. Armenia
and Tajikistan have the lowest export and import volume, and are at the bottom of the export
(117 and 123 rank respectively) and import ranking (106 and 108 rank respectively) established
by the WTO.
Refreshed data*?
Table 1.1. EATL countries economic parameters
source: Informal Doc #1
Table 1.2. EATL countries bilateral and multilateral trade agreements
source: Informal Doc #1
23
I.2. Euro-Asian trade routes
Sources: UN Comtrade, UNCTAD, WTO, National statistical agencies, etc.
Scope of the analysis: Volume and structure of international trade between Europe and Asia.
Trends and prospects. (region-to-region, country-to-region, country-to-country matrix on export
and import of goods. Identification of main trade partners, commodity groups, containerized
cargoes).
Timeframe: 2010-2014/2015, 2015/2016 estimations
Methodology: statistical patterns and trends, comparison analysis, structural analysis
Data To be inserted
I.2.1. Trade routes general development
Modern supply chains and transport corridors
Modern supply chains characteristics
“Supply chains compete, not companies” - this principle developed by Martin Christopher, one
of the classics of logistics and supply chain management, is the key to understanding the current
situation and the prospects of global trade lanes, in particular – the Euro-Asian.
In the course of supply chains competition requirements to transport corridors and transport
operatorsare established. Supply chain managing entities choose the trade routes and service
providers.
Globalization together with introduction of logistics principles into production, trade and
distribution had dramatically changed the nature of supply chains during the recent decades. To
be adequate to their desirable role, EATL corridors should meet the requirements of modern
supply chains for which the corridors provide proper connectivity, capacity and economic
efficiency.
The following principal features of modern supply chains should be mentioned in this context.
1) Integrated management. The first principle feature of modern supply chains that, in many
ways, predetermines the rest is the presence of the integrated management.
Traditional supply chains (the “old” Silk Way is probably the best historic example) had
represented the long enough series of sales in the trading cities along the route connected by
trade caravans on land or by commercial shipping. Fragmentation was the key characteristics of
the players’ relationship. Each of them was interested and responsible only for one particular
chain link.
Modern supply chains are under the constant control which is usually carried out by high level
logistic providers acting on behalf of the focus companies of the supply chains.The entire logistic
network within the supply chain is constantly customized according to the market situation.
24
Functions, costs, responsibilities and risks are distributed among the players and planning is done
across the supply chain according to the strategic interests of the whole system.
The management criteria within the supply chain are way more complicated than just “time and
costs”. The economic idea of supply chain management is sometimes expressed as “to reduce the
total cost of owning materials and services across the entire chain”, which leads to integrated
control of stock – either moving or at rest - as well as of all kinds of services, costs, risks, etc.
Accordingly, modern supply chains managers are not using just one particular “best” route or
mode of transportation or transport operator while making transport decisions. They need to have
several options to combine them within the currently optimal decision. Their choice is not only
the transport route itself, however “short” or “fast” or “cheap” it can be. The logistics business
environment along the trade lane, availability of logistic services, friendly and predictable
administrative procedures, ability to flexibly switch the flow between different intermediate
points – all this is important in decision making as well as political stability along the entire trade
lane and safety and security factors.
2) Flexible routing. While the traditional supply chain is something like the fixed sequence of
nodes and links between the origin and destination points, the modern supply chain looks more
than a network connecting the regions where commodity flows are nucleated and absorbed. The
actual routes can vary within this network depending on the changing situation on the
commodity markets served by the supply chain and on the transport services market.
In many cases the actual route is not the shortest one, even for one particular mode, because of
the hub&spoke technologies often used by long-haul transport operators (for the sake of
transport flows efficiency) and logistic providers (for the sake of commodity flows efficiency).
3) Special role of nodes. Nodes of traditional supply chains – sea and inland waterway ports,
railway stations, etc., had always performed the obviously necessary connecting and
transshipment functions within the supply chains. At the same time traditionally they also
created inevitable obstacles for traffic and cargo flows, sometimes being the bottlenecks within
the supply chains.
“Traditional” node is the spot where the flow of vehicles and commodities is interrupted and
players that have to co-operate in resumption of this flow often have contradictory interests.
Some local players – both state agencies and commercial intermediaries - pursue pure revenue
goals. The procedures are often aimed not at speeding the process but at collecting more fees
(formal and sometimes informal). Scarcity of resources is a typical system problem and long
enough waiting time for cargo - either onboard the vehicles or in the warehouses - is a rule.
Different types of cargo are handled which aggravates the problems. Additional services adding
to the total value of goods are rare. The market position of the “traditional” node is often a
monopoly since it gains an advantage, primarily, due to its geographical position.
Nodes of modern supply chains are quite different. Supply chain connectivity and fastening of
flows is the main goal for the players in charge, including the governmental agencies. Fast and
cheap transshipment is the main efficiency factor. The technologies used are focused on
intermodal units, primarily – containers. Handling operations arecomplemented by value added
logistic services. Nodes compete with each other because their main advantages – services
quality and price as well as the set of transport services catering for particular node – do not so
much depend on the location factors.
4) Intermodality. Modern intercontinental supply chains are intermodal by their nature. Most of
origins and destinations in the Euro-Asian trade in principle can not be connected by services of
25
one single transport mode. It means that in spite of intermodal competition (which is one of the
drivers of transport system efficiency) different modes are compelled to co-operate within the
transportation process. If the transport operator is in the position to succeed in the supply chain it
must either be capable to design intermodal transport product engaging other modes’ operators
on attractive terms (as many shipping companies do) or it should be ready to be engaged to
participate in such a product designed by someone else. The latter means offering reliable
transport service with guaranteed parameters as well as meeting the technological standards for
intermodal transportation.
5) Regular transport services. One of the most important qualities highly valued in modern
supply chains is the availability of regular transport services. Regular service with pre-
announced call points, schedules and tariffs is ideal from the point of view of supply chain
design and planning and it can be utilized on the “plug and play” basis without additional
trimming. It is commonly accepted that the minimum frequency of the regular long-haul
transport service suitable for most international supply chains is a weekly service although the
well-developed trade lanes show the example of several serviced a day offered by a number of
competing transport operators. Combining the regular services of different modes (e.g., ship and
rail) allows creating efficient intermodal transport services within the supply chains.
Types of corridors
Summarizing the classifications proposed by numerous researchers (Arnold (2005),
Kunaka&Carruters (2014), Rastogi and Arvis (2014) and others), the following types of
transport corridors can be specified:
- transport transit corridor that provides smooth, fast and cheap movement of vehicles along the
specified route. The main performance indicators for transport transit corridor are the speed, cost
and safety of transportation. Corridors of this type are often created at the national level or they
pass through the group of countries within a free trade zone. Accordingly, the efforts while
creating the transit corridor are focused on infrastructure and transportation technologies. The
main beneficiaries of this type of corridors are transport operators who achieve the decrease of
operational costs and vehicle turnover time and can share these positive results with their
customers. Transport transit corridors can also generate environmental benefits;
- trade transit corridor that provides smooth, fast and cheap movement of goods along the
logistic supply chains. Trade transit corridors usually cross at least one frontier where the trade
flow is interrupted by a set of customs, sanitary and other border procedures. The main
performance indicators for transit corridor are the speed, cost and safety of merchandise
movement and distribution. Besides that, the spectrum and quality of value added logistic
services is important. In addition to the mentioned above transport component creating the
effective trade transit corridor envisages also the improvement of the administrative procedures
along the corridor.
The main beneficiaries of this type of corridor are located in the origin and destination regions
which can lead to a “transit country paradox” - the cheaper and faster is the trade lane within the
corridor the less is the revenue of the transit countries. More, substantial traffic on transit routes
can lead to limitations of their national transport system capacity;
- access corridor which is created to approach some point or region. Typical access corridors
give the landlocked countries the opportunity to trade via foreign seaports. The performance of
this type of corridor can be measured by the trade-related costs level “with and without the
project”. National economies of the countries originally isolated from the destination point
benefit from the access corridor. To be effective, it needs not only the well developed transport
26
infrastructure but also a logistics “interface” represented by terminals and distribution centers. A
market segment of transport operators, freight forwarders and high level logistic providers is also
necessary to help the national business to benefit from the access corridor;
- developing corridor provides the conditions for socio-economic development of particular
economic region. Developing corridor project is usually interconnected with numerous regional
projects of mining, town-planning, plant construction and so on. The corridor plays the role of
backbone of the regional development serving the needs of the growing industry, social sphere,
creating jobs, increasing the territory value. The list of beneficiaries can be long enough
including regional and national authorities, site-developers, local population, etc.
Cooperation
EATL corridors, to a great extent, combine the features of all the types of corridors mentioned
above.
This, on one hand, makes the list of possible benefits impressive enough. On another hand, the
countries participating in the EATL should have a clear understanding of possibilities, costs,
benefits and risks that particular projects mean to them and their partners.
EATL corridors successful development does not mean just improving the quality of the
infrastructure on specific routes. Equally important are institutional factors such as general
business environment level, quality and scope of services available, customs and border control
procedures, and all the related trade or transportation policies that affect logistics performance.
Cross-border cooperation is critically essential either because the supply chains are only as
strong as their weakest link is. Balanced and coordinated logistics strategy is the keystone for
EATL countries, especially Central Asian, since they depend on each other in attracting transit
flows and in development of their own global trade links.
Thereby, a corridor is not just an infrastructural concept. Strategically, the corridor idea is about
organizing the economic activities on particular territories. Different transport modes are used
just to effectively link these activities together. The success of a corridor is thus in part a
function of the coalitions that parties are able to form to attract investments and improve
performance. How the parties collaborate to manage a corridor is a key dimension of the
definition of a corridor. Institutional and economic relationships are part and parcel of a corridor,
especially in the presence of competing trade routes [Kunaka, Karruters].
Unfortunately, at the moment cooperation is not among the strong features of the EATL routes
network. “The paradox of the modern Silk Route is that despite changes in transport technology
its governance and organization are reminiscent of the old Silk Road. The latter depended on
fragmented caravan trade. No direct business connection was in place between buyers and
sellers, and trade happened through along and costly series of sales in the famous trading cities
along the route” [Rastogi, Cardoula].
Supply chain fragmentation is the principle problem of the EATL routes to be tackled
strategically. The situation is exacerbated by a lack of skills and a limited culture of market-
focused supply-chain management among both private and public sector. The private sector that
has a key role in provision of modern supply chains connectivity is not enough developed in
certain EATL countries, particularly in Central Asia. A limited presence of international
logistics brands leads to a limited exposure to international best practices of supply-chain
management.
27
Trade lanes general development
Despite of the general economic situation, the Euro-Asian trade is the main generator of the
global trade. World export growth is mainly driven by Asia and Europe.
According to Seabury Cargo Advisory, Chinese export growth alone is responsible for almost 50%
of all TEU growth in 2014, followed at a distance by growth from South East Asia and Europe.
Export growth in North East Asia is negative if China is excluded.
Asia to Middle East and Indian Subcontinent trade is growing faster than Asia-Europe. This
trade lane is also dominated by China. At the same time, Asia to Europe trade is slowing down.
With the exception of Spain and Poland, all major destinations on the Asia-Europe trade are
expected to see a slowing of growth the coming 5 years.
Although the Asia/Europe trade is expected to slow down, some commodities will still show
increasing growth rates
Sourse: Seabury
29
I.2.2. Main trade partners
1102.3
683.3
1328.3
862.8
1253.0
904.7
1230.6
936.4
1188.5
905.5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Asia - Europe Europe - Asia
Figure *** Dynamics of trade in goods between Europe and Asia in 2010-2014, billion US
Dollars
Source: UN Comtrade database
Table *** Import of goods to Asia from selected European countries in 2010, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Importers)
Countries of Europe (exporters)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 14.7 1.2 0.0 1024.8 0.1 0.6 539.0 28.4 5.3 259.9 14.0 1888.0
Armenia 42.1 0.0 160.2 732.9 0.1 1.4 396.1 0.6 33.9 0.0 201.3 1568.6
Azerbaijan 140.2 0.4 244.0 3106.6 1.7 7.5 1476.9 5.8 136.6 1551.2 610.8 7281.7
China 475.8 5.0 24.3 149968.7 89.2 2.3 19783.0 7.3 7178.1 2259.8 1316.6 181110.1
Iran 97.2 30.3 12.1 14975.8 1.8 3.1 3359.0 32.3 674.9 3043.4 1030.7 23260.6
Kazakhstan 464.8 0.0 47.9 6918.8 0.3 30.5 10690.4 4.6 168.3 819.9 1300.5 20446.0
Kyrgyzstan 85.5 0.0 3.1 278.9 2.5 975.4 7.3 129.2 75.0 1556.9
Mongolia 13.2 0.1 0.1 319.6 0.2 936.6 0.3 2.7 11.2 33.3 1317.3
Pakistan 33.7 0.1 0.0 4938.5 0.1 0.1 104.3 1.2 283.9 248.2 113.0 5723.1
Russian Federation 9953.6 25.7 33.9 114019.1 26.7 404.0 - 534.7 2585.7 4631.5 13431.9 145646.8
Tajikistan 42.1 0.0 2.5 191.0 0.7 672.6 1.5 3.4 144.1 74.7 1132.6
Turkey 104.8 55.0 216.0 81219.9 50.9 67.5 13958.6 88.0 2030.2 - 3026.6 100817.5
Turkmenistan 87.2 0.0 12.2 956.7 0.1 1.0 717.5 2.8 16.0 1139.2 208.9 3141.6
Uzbekistan 95.1 0.0 6.7 1646.6 4.5 1663.5 1.5 96.1 283.0 228.5 4025.5
India *) 330.8 26.3 12.0 46159.0 2.4 3.4 5406.3 9.7 2464.6 606.8 1426.0 56447.3
Japan *) 3.6 0.4 8.1 58173.1 0.9 0.4 12496.6 1.6 6474.0 272.3 104.8 77535.8
Republic of Korea *) 25.1 0.1 7.0 36987.1 1.8 0.0 10407.9 0.9 2183.7 304.6 498.0 50416.2
TOTAL 12009.5 144.6 790.1 521617.1 176.1 529.7 83583.7 721.2 24344.7 15704.3 23694.6 683315.6
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
31
Table *** Export of goods from Asia to selected European countries in 2010, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Exporters)
Countries of Europe (importers)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 2.0 0.0 0.0 54.6 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.6 5.1 0.5 82.3
Armenia 5.1 0.1 45.5 343.0 0.0 0.9 158.5 0.8 3.2 2.6 17.9 577.6
Azerbaijan 6.0 0.0 464.2 12866.2 0.2 0.2 385.9 0.5 924.6 865.1 951.2 16464.1
China 1684.1 444.0 333.7 374248.6 288.8 320.2 38960.9 1202.5 5848.2 17180.8 4700.4 445212.2
Iran 7.6 2.4 55.1 19242.4 5.5 1.0 271.6 15.8 42.5 7644.8 49.9 27338.6
Kazakhstan 405.8 6.1 91.6 21070.4 1.5 15.8 4449.4 30.4 1075.6 2471.0 766.2 30383.8
Kyrgyzstan 8.3 0.2 1.4 263.1 1.1 0.5 393.3 3.8 0.1 30.9 6.2 708.9
Mongolia 0.0 0.0 133.9 0.2 0.0 79.1 0.0 1.2 0.9 11.1 226.4
Pakistan 15.7 5.5 2.0 5070.4 4.9 2.9 240.2 9.2 60.5 749.9 55.2 6216.4
Russian Federation 18080.6 805.2 279.7 212788.6 552.5 586.5 2157.2 1000.2 21599.6 22198.0 280048.1
Tajikistan 5.5 0.0 0.1 75.1 0.0 0.0 213.7 0.4 0.2 283.7 3.5 582.2
Turkey 259.4 256.4 883.6 56159.6 261.7 205.8 4866.0 324.9 736.0 1298.3 65251.7
Turkmenistan 3.6 0.1 59.2 485.6 1.3 1.7 148.0 1.5 0.1 386.3 31.4 1118.8
Uzbekistan 58.5 0.3 9.7 459.3 0.4 3.6 1513.5 9.5 32.8 861.4 81.7 3030.7
India *) 152.0 36.5 32.5 44119.1 34.5 26.0 2143.3 113.4 969.5 3409.9 680.7 51717.4
Japan *) 184.8 55.8 80.9 89101.9 45.4 34.4 10259.7 136.9 3537.3 3297.8 801.8 107536.7
Republic of Korea *) 139.2 45.6 29.3 52186.8 43.4 23.3 7281.5 126.0 422.4 4764.0 768.0 65829.5
TOTAL 21018.2 1658.2 2368.5 888668.6 1241.4 1222.8 71384.1 4132.8 14655.0 63553.8 32422.0 1102325.4
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
32
Table *** Import of goods to Asia from selected European countries in 2011, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Importers)
Countries of Europe (exporters)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 140.3 1.6 2.1 1247.5 0.6 5.4 801.3 10 10.8 276 14.1 2509.7
Armenia 24.2 0.1 218.4 896.7 0.2 2.9 437.1 0.7 29.2 0.2 227.6 1837.3
Azerbaijan 138.6 0.5 425.8 4010.6 0.2 5.7 2196.4 3.9 236.5 2064.2 708.3 9790.7
China 631.6 5.8 28.9 189785.8 127.5 3.9 34692.4 15.3 9971.2 2466.6 2180 239909.0
Iran 124.5 32.3 16.2 14604.4 0.9 1.0 3277.1 48.4 761.5 3589.7 1127.4 23583.4
Kazakhstan 668.7 0.1 156.9 8326.1 0.2 45.5 14173.7 9.9 318.1 947.9 1857.5 26504.6
Kyrgyzstan 218.2 0.1 7.6 568.0 2.9 1156.4 0.0 9.0 180.4 111.3 2253.9
Mongolia 77.4 0.0 0.8 573.8 0.1 1485.6 0.4 9.9 43.4 45.3 2236.7
Pakistan 48.8 0.4 0.4 5226.4 0.1 126.3 0.4 315.4 213.7 183.7 6115.6
Russian Federation 14397.7 37.8 21.2 151061.7 39.6 625.5 792.3 3396.5 5992.7 19819.7 196184.7
Tajikistan 50.1 0.0 4.5 195.0 0.0 1.2 721.4 0.8 4.3 172.6 60.2 1210.1
Turkey 128.6 106.7 214.1 101945.9 73.4 73.4 15086.8 183.2 2421.7 3748.6 123982.4
Turkmenistan 213.8 0.0 5.5 1326.0 0.1 1.2 1116.9 1.4 23.6 1493.4 241.9 4423.8
Uzbekistan 63.8 0.0 12.8 1810.3 5.8 1983.1 2.7 100.5 354.5 353.8 4687.3
India *) 331.2 15.2 19.3 56460.9 18.1 5.6 4665.7 8.4 3364.8 756.1 2265.3 67910.6
Japan *) 12.2 0.3 2.9 68275.1 1.1 0.9 14234.7 2.3 7509.2 296.4 152.5 90487.6
Republic of Korea *) 8.6 0.2 8.5 42235.3 19.4 0.2 13329.7 1.4 2620.4 527.8 467.6 59219.1
TOTAL 17278.3 201.1 1145.9 648549.5 281.3 781.3 109484.6 1081.5 31102.6 19375.6 33564.8 862846.5
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
33
Table *** Export of goods from Asia to selected European countries in 2011, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Exporters)
Countries of Europe (importers)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 2.8 0.0 0.0 66.3 0.0 28.1 0.1 0.1 4.8 1.1 103.3
Armenia 5.5 0.1 51.4 448.3 0.0 0.2 183.8 5.5 6.8 0.1 18.5 720.2
Azerbaijan 825.8 0.0 446.6 21517.8 2.7 571.1 0.1 503.7 262.3 643.3 24773.4
China 2166.5 551.5 525.1 410570.8 354.9 399.8 48038.4 1488.5 7119.3 21693.0 6268.3 499176.1
Iran 8.9 2.2 64.9 24116.6 5.3 1.3 351.4 9.7 34.6 12461.5 46.5 37102.9
Kazakhstan 136.8 2.7 69.6 31897.7 1.6 31.9 6912.7 110.8 2179.4 1995.1 1675.9 45014.2
Kyrgyzstan 9.1 0.5 1.4 76.3 1.6 0.1 290.8 4.8 0.1 52.1 7.5 444.3
Mongolia 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.6 0.6 0.0 89.1 0.0 2.2 3.0 4.9 201.2
Pakistan 13.4 6.8 4.9 6502.6 4.9 3.0 349.3 8.6 82.1 873.1 68.2 7916.9
Russian Federation 24709.8 1163.6 312.6 280185.2 684.3 823.0 2654.2 1005.8 23952.9 29132.2 364623.6
Tajikistan 21.9 0.0 0.6 105.6 0.0 0.0 88.6 7.0 0.0 324.3 13.0 561.0
Turkey 315.3 320.3 1276.5 67635.4 345.4 366.9 6352.5 405.1 872.9 1481.2 79371.5
Turkmenistan 8.0 0.0 55.5 622.4 4.0 9.1 142.6 0.4 45.6 392.7 736.0 2016.3
Uzbekistan 44.3 1.4 11.7 551.9 0.1 10.6 1756.2 16.3 9.4 939.9 643.9 3985.7
India *) 172.6 52.9 55.4 55566.4 47.4 37.6 2760.6 149.6 1471.5 6498.7 812.3 67625.0
Japan *) 245.5 62.5 174.1 98227.5 52.0 43.7 15012.6 165.6 4675.8 4263.7 1014.0 123937.0
Republic of Korea *) 188.9 50.1 46.9 50534.5 45.8 34.6 11575.7 158.1 556.3 6298.5 1236.0 70725.4
TOTAL 28875.1 2214.6 3098 1048726 1547.9 1764.5 94503.5 5184.4 18565.6 80015.7 43802.8 1328298.0
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
34
Table *** Import of goods to Asia from selected European countries in 2012, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Importers)
Countries of Europe (exporters)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 156.3 2.0 13.4 1212.7 0.6 8.2 938.4 3.5 12.2 290 21 2658.3
Armenia 31.1 0.0 255.6 876.4 0.2 1.4 447.9 1.1 83.6 0.2 179.2 1876.7
Azerbaijan 139.2 0.4 626.4 3839.7 0.8 5.4 2845.7 31.6 198.2 2587.5 766.6 11041.5
China 432.0 5.6 25.6 185040.4 158.8 8.3 35766.8 19.8 9928.1 2833.4 1777.2 235996.0
Iran 108.4 18.6 18.5 9481.1 0.1 1.2 1900.4 32.9 495.4 9922.6 1164.7 23143.9
Kazakhstan 804.1 0.3 62.2 8893.8 0.8 50.3 14892.5 11.4 239.9 1069.4 2459.3 28484.0
Kyrgyzstan 141.8 0.1 8.9 541.3 2.8 1634.1 0 11.8 257.5 127.1 2725.4
Mongolia 111.4 0.2 3.2 560.6 0.1 1851.4 0.3 11.3 35.9 45.5 2619.9
Pakistan 53.9 0.1 0.2 5289.0 0.0 210.0 0.4 278.6 276.5 114.1 6222.8
Russian Federation 16161.4 36.8 36.5 158535.7 33.1 655.1 866.2 3157.9 6683.0 17631.7 203797.4
Tajikistan 48.2 0.0 4.8 209.6 0.9 678.8 1.4 2.8 235.0 100.8 1282.3
Turkey 145.2 115.7 134.8 96833.1 66.8 56.1 16103.2 187.0 4401.8 3685.1 121728.8
Turkmenistan 230.2 0.0 8.0 1703.3 0.1 0.8 1210.6 0.5 33.6 1480.5 528.2 5195.8
Uzbekistan 95.5 0.0 16.2 1570.2 8.2 2324.7 1.2 69.7 450.4 435.9 4972.0
India *) 263.9 11.1 14.9 49502.4 24.0 3.7 7566.7 4.9 30629.2 791.7 2290.9 91103.4
Japan *) 15.1 0.7 5.7 71414.7 1.5 1.1 15588.0 4.2 7648.4 332.0 320.5 95331.9
Republic of Korea *) 37.9 1.0 2.9 48561.3 57.9 0.0 13865.5 2.2 2954.8 528.0 481.9 66493.4
TOTAL 18975.6 192.6 1237.8 644065.3 344.7 803.6 117824.7 1168.6 60157.3 27773.6 32129.7 904673.5
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
35
Table *** Export of goods from Asia to selected European countries in 2012, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Exporters)
Countries of Europe (importers)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 1.5 0.1 0.0 73.7 0.0 11.3 0.1 1.3 6.5 0.9 95.4
Armenia 6.7 0.1 68.3 353.9 0.0 0.4 300.7 0.3 9.0 0.2 22.9 762.5
Azerbaijan 12.2 34.1 448.4 18364.5 0.5 563.6 0.8 238.6 339.9 79.7 20082.3
China 2345.0 536.2 613.6 374828.4 374.9 415.7 51767.7 1385.5 11072.6 21295.1 7899.6 472534.3
Iran 9.1 2.4 100.4 7264.8 2.9 1.0 428.5 7.7 39.4 11964.6 67.4 19888.2
Kazakhstan 119.0 2.5 131.8 31562.4 6.0 26.5 9409.3 415.3 1459.0 2056.1 1494.9 46682.8
Kyrgyzstan 12.5 0.9 2.5 69.8 2.3 0.3 195.7 6.4 344.1 45.2 6.5 686.2
Mongolia 0.0 0.0 86.8 0.0 0.0 64.3 0.0 38.5 0.0 4.6 194.2
Pakistan 11.9 6.0 5.8 5278.2 5.8 3.8 332.2 9.7 114.9 555.0 121.5 6444.8
Russian Federation 27268.6 981.1 385.7 276499.8 362.1 816.9 2076.6 3082.6 26625.0 27418.3 365516.7
Tajikistan 9.3 3.9 0.0 154.3 0.0 0.0 67.7 48.7 53.7 345.2 7.2 690.0
Turkey 343.2 295.0 1468.8 62042.9 325.4 388.2 6840.0 439.0 2389.7 1951.9 76484.1
Turkmenistan 6.2 0.0 30.7 860.7 2.2 4.0 183.8 0.1 29.6 303.0 123.4 1543.7
Uzbekistan 29.0 2.4 12.1 334.5 0.1 8.6 1390.8 4.3 543.2 813.3 109.0 3247.3
India *) 231.8 47.3 73.9 48173.4 50.9 30.5 3041.3 153.5 1547.4 5843.6 1020.7 60214.3
Japan *) 179.7 58.2 312.6 83218.5 48.4 30.9 15676.1 186.2 5045.9 3601.4 1197.8 109555.7
Republic of Korea *) 150.9 45.2 53.0 48848.2 23.1 32.8 10976.9 146.6 883.2 5660.1 1547.2 68367.2
TOTAL 30736.6 2015.4 3707.6 958014.8 1204.1 1760.1 101249.9 4880.8 26892.7 79454.2 43073.5 1252989.7
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
36
Table *** Import of goods to Asia from selected European countries in 2013, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Importers)
Countries of Europe (exporters)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 4.8 0.5 8.3 767.4 0.2 1.0 631.0 4.9 9.7 228.2 16.1 1672.1
Armenia 29.9 0.0 312.5 946.4 0.1 1.1 468.4 1.8 84.3 0.1 181.0 2025.6
Azerbaijan 164.1 0.6 710.0 4965.7 0.5 6.5 2942.5 56.1 256.9 2960.4 869.0 12932.3
China 460.3 7.1 33.9 196827.9 103.9 6.5 35625.4 9.1 20986.7 3600.9 2726.7 260388.4
Iran 32.9 19.1 46.9 7233.0 0.2 0.9 1168.6 13.9 358.8 4192.5 793.9 13860.7
Kazakhstan 862.0 0.3 103.6 9945.2 0.3 39.2 17218.2 11.6 210.4 1039.4 2120.1 31550.3
Kyrgyzstan 98.2 0.0 8.9 531.5 3.3 2029.4 0.6 17.5 388.3 134.7 3212.4
Mongolia 107.7 0.1 4.6 677.7 0.1 1572.1 0.8 13.2 48.1 45.8 2470.2
Pakistan 42.5 0.1 2.9 5092.3 0.1 1.9 197.1 0.4 299.7 285.9 234.1 6157.0
Russian Federation 16733.7 38.8 179.3 158985.4 31.6 631.9 1062.7 3388.5 6994.2 15077.3 203123.4
Tajikistan 29.7 0.0 7.9 260.7 0.1 1.9 724.4 0.5 3.5 283.6 61.3 1373.6
Turkey 167.8 114.0 183.8 103165.4 71.7 127.1 15122.1 219.0 8900.9 3805.5 131877.3
Turkmenistan 315.7 0.0 14.1 1449.1 0.1 1.0 1429.9 0.3 28.3 1957.5 395.1 5591.1
Uzbekistan 92.2 0.0 22.7 1868.3 0.0 7.6 2803.9 1.9 87.6 562.5 351.7 5798.4
India *) 172.7 1.1 6.4 47620.7 28.7 0.7 6982.7 7.8 25870.6 586.9 1974.6 83252.9
Japan *) 21.5 0.6 3.6 71666.5 1.6 0.5 19667.5 6.3 6925.7 409.2 458.4 99161.4
Republic of Korea *) 30.2 0.9 0.9 53058.2 0.7 0.4 14867.1 0.5 3112.8 460.1 407.5 71939.3
TOTAL 19365.9 183.2 1650.3 665061.4 239.8 831.6 123450.3 1398.2 70555.1 23997.8 29652.8 936386.4
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
37
Table *** Export of goods from Asia to selected European countries in 2013, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Exporters)
Countries of Europe (importers)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 1.2 0.1 1.0 74.0 0.0 14.3 0.1 4.1 10.7 2.3 107.8
Armenia 8.5 0.0 180.4 347.9 0.0 0.5 352.4 0.1 8.1 0.4 19.7 918.0
Azerbaijan 12.6 0.0 400.1 18851.8 0.1 0.3 635.9 0.0 266.8 3337.7 77.8 23583.1
China 2827.2 620.3 611.6 371903.1 379.6 478.9 53173.1 1509.6 12334.8 24685.9 7903.2 476427.3
Iran 9.6 1.7 129.7 1029.1 1.8 1.5 432.9 3.6 33.3 10383.2 83.7 12110.1
Kazakhstan 77.7 3.5 55.3 31165.2 2.8 32.7 5664.9 888.2 1877.0 1760.1 683.6 42211.0
Kyrgyzstan 12.7 0.7 2.1 102.9 1.8 0.3 110.1 5.7 363.8 37.0 11.8 648.9
Mongolia 0.0 0.1 94.9 0.0 40.9 310.8 0.4 1.4 448.5
Pakistan 15.8 7.3 5.4 6015.2 6.6 2.7 350.0 9.8 105.3 436.7 93.8 7048.6
Russian Federation 22573.3 1022.0 503.2 274191.1 163.6 788.0 1903.5 4736.4 25064.2 23244.0 354189.3
Tajikistan 4.9 0.4 0.0 119.0 0.0 37.9 1.2 50.3 371.4 5.2 590.3
Turkey 397.4 234.4 1408.9 66910.3 314.5 381.0 7272.8 530.9 1471.3 1852.9 80774.4
Turkmenistan 3.4 0.0 47.9 1150.1 1.1 3.2 139.4 0.1 0.9 653.8 100.5 2100.4
Uzbekistan 33.6 3.4 15.5 328.1 0.3 9.8 1256.9 0.4 1539.0 815.4 91.6 4094.0
India *) 181.1 54.4 55.7 48869.6 68.7 35.0 3091.2 173.9 1662.3 6367.8 838.6 61398.3
Japan *) 213.0 51.7 319.9 75062.1 55.5 37.3 13560.5 124.2 4026.5 3453.2 985.0 97888.9
Republic of Korea *) 204.7 47.7 70.7 47592.5 29.1 33.9 10305.4 141.1 709.3 6088.3 830.6 66053.3
TOTAL 26576.7 2047.7 3807.4 943806.9 1025.5 1805.1 96438.6 5292.4 29500 83466.2 36825.7 1230592.2
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
38
Table *** Import of goods to Asia from selected European countries in 2014, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Importers)
Countries of Europe (exporters)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 4.2 0.1 1.5 640.8 0.3 0.1 407.6 5.1 8 186.2 10.2 1264.1
Armenia 27.2 0.0 280.6 937.9 0.3 2.1 534.8 1.7 125.2 173.4 2083.2
Azerbaijan 186.6 0.9 544.2 4605.1 0.6 5.9 2144.3 15.7 192 2874.6 591.6 11161.5
China 639.0 9.2 90.4 217443.3 92.6 8.2 37414.6 14.2 18407.1 2861.1 2674.1 279653.8
Iran 84.3 2.1 28.2 8487.2 0.8 2.1 1325.5 15.9 666.1 3886.2 703.4 15201.8
Kazakhstan 875.5 0.1 88.6 8922.5 0.1 45.3 13862.3 16.8 235.6 977.5 1073.2 26097.5
Kyrgyzstan 88.8 0.0 10.0 530.2 3.3 1737.7 1.4 15.9 421.4 102.5 2911.2
Mongolia 21.7 0.1 2.3 438.4 0.2 0.0 1460.4 0.6 10.5 35.3 38.0 2007.5
Pakistan 42.6 0.1 0.7 5253.6 1.2 7.9 143.1 0.7 299.0 259.3 397.8 6406.0
Russian Federation 15071.6 54.0 270.0 136267.3 42.1 423.7 1029.1 3174.6 5943.0 9799.1 172074.5
Tajikistan 30.6 0.9 10.8 286.1 0.0 2.0 890.9 0.8 121.0 277.4 46.7 1667.2
Turkey 161.3 155.5 222.4 98243.6 67.6 104.7 14755.2 230.9 4902.1 3561.4 122404.7
Turkmenistan 174.0 0.0 14.3 1451.9 0.2 1.2 1137.7 1.6 22.2 2231.2 431.3 5465.6
Uzbekistan 67.1 0.0 54.8 2061.8 8.1 3113.6 7.2 142.7 603.0 308.6 6366.9
India *) 210.4 0.5 10.8 46196.2 22.0 0.6 4395.7 8.7 21118.4 586.6 1817.4 74367.3
Japan *) 12.5 1.5 3.3 69751.7 1.2 1.4 19830.8 6.8 6981.3 375.5 209.6 97175.6
Republic of Korea *) 42.6 4.4 3.5 56802.1 0.1 0.1 18081.8 2.4 3242.3 470.5 510.3 79160.1
TOTAL 17740.0 229.4 1636.4 658319.7 229.3 616.7 121236.0 1359.6 59664.0 21988.8 22448.6 905468.5
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
39
Table *** Export of goods from Asia to selected European countries in 2014, million US dollars
Countries of Asia
(Exporters)
Countries of Europe (importers)
Belarus
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Georgia EC
FYR
Macedonia
Moldova
Russian
Federation
Serbia
Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
TOTAL
Afghanistan 1.4 0.4 63.3 0.0 0.1 12.7 0.1 0.1 16.5 1.0 95.6
Armenia 9.0 0.0 205.1 304.4 0.0 0.4 314.2 0.1 4.8 1.5 13.3 852.8
Azerbaijan 18.4 0.3 349.1 17548.6 0.0 0.1 452.3 0.4 441.2 291.3 43.7 19145.4
China 948.0 922.5 733.0 400507.7 433.0 481.2 50583.0 1561.1 13284.7 24918.2 5408.9 499781.3
Iran 6.1 2.3 122.7 1532.3 1.6 1.1 355.1 3.9 32.7 9833.3 52.7 11943.8
Kazakhstan 82.5 2.7 35.2 31209.4 1.8 27.3 7172.4 198.0 1034.6 1236.3 375.8 41376.0
Kyrgyzstan 6.5 0.7 2.7 105.3 2.1 0.4 70.9 4.8 425.1 65.6 4.3 688.4
Mongolia 0.7 0.0 98.5 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.0 421.6 0.1 0.6 561.9
Pakistan 6.5 9.8 4.0 7317.3 5.4 2.9 310.9 14.8 117.8 435.5 100.7 8325.6
Russian Federation 21868.6 876.8 462.1 220906.1 140.1 717.2 2340.4 3314.9 25288.6 12678.7 288593.5
Tajikistan 4.0 0.0 0.0 81.1 0.0 0.0 37.3 0.0 121.7 160.9 3.2 408.2
Turkey 338.7 394.8 1727.3 72035.9 377.8 300.9 6654.3 589.7 3626.9 1298.2 87344.5
Turkmenistan 5.1 0.1 69.3 1083.9 1.5 0.0 90.9 0.6 29.9 623.3 24.6 1929.2
Uzbekistan 21.7 2.3 13.4 309.7 0.2 15.4 869.8 0.0 1336.2 780.7 72.8 3422.2
India *) 71.0 68.3 50.5 49144.7 48.2 36.9 3170.7 139.9 1777.0 6898.6 656.4 62062.2
Japan *) 88.5 64.3 368.2 72951.9 64.1 45.8 10917.4 107.5 3985.2 3199.9 612.6 92405.4
Republic of Korea *) 62.7 52.3 51.5 51477.0 32.6 38.6 8972.5 119.8 690.1 7548.3 478.3 69523.7
TOTAL 23539.4 2397.6 4194.1 926677.1 1108.4 1668.3 90024.8 5081.1 30644.5 81298.6 21825.8 1188459.7
Souce: UN Comtrade database
*) India, Japan and Republic of Korea are non EATL Project countries
I.2.3. Main commodity groups
The Group of Experts on Euro-Asian Transport Links (EATL) at its eleventh session
(ECE/TRANS/WP.5/GE.2/2 (Paragraph 14)) requested the secretariat to send out a questionnaire
to selected ports and ask for information about the type of cargo and transport passing through
ports relevant to the EATL project.
The information received from ports includes three parts of cargoes:
1. Cargoes identified as suitable for overland transport between Europe and Asia.
2. Synergies between overland and maritime transport types of cargoes.
3. Cargoes most relevant for the Euro-Asian maritime transport.
Cargo that can be transported by rail or road from Europe to Asia and vice versa covers a rather
limited niche market which includes high value and small volume goods, especially the ones that
may be containerised. Those are goods for which air transport is too expensive, while maritime
transport is too slow. These cargoes includes the following Standard International Trade
Classification (SITC) positions (Table **):
Table ** Cargoes identified as suitable for overland transport between Europe and Asia or
shiftable from maritime to overland transport Commoditiy
Group
Description
SITC 08 Edible fruit, nuts, peel of citrus fruit, melons
SITC 09 Coffee, tea, mate and spices
SITC 11 Milling products, malt, starches, inulin, wheat gluten
SITC 12 Oil seed, oleagic fruits, grain, seed, fruit, etc, nes
SITC 13 Lac, gums, resins, vegetable saps and extracts nes
SITC 14 Vegetable plaiting materials, vegetable products nes
SITC 15 Animal,vegetable fats and oils, cleavage products, etc
SITC 16 Meat, fish and seafood food preparations nes
SITC 17 Sugars and sugar confectionery
SITC 18 Cocoa and cocoa preparations
SITC 19 Cereal, flour, starch, milk preparations and products
SITC 20 Vegetable, fruit, nut, etc food preparations
SITC 21 Miscellaneous edible preparations
SITC 22 Beverages, spirits and vinegar
SITC 23 Residues, wastes of food industry, animal fodder
SITC 24 Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes
SITC 25 Salt, sulphur, earth, stone, plaster, lime and cement
SITC 29 Organic chemicals
SITC 30 Pharmaceutical products
SITC 31 Fertilizers
SITC 32 Tanning, dyeing extracts, tannins, derivs,pigments etc
SITC 33 Essential oils, perfumes, cosmetics, toileteries
SITC 34 Soaps, lubricants, waxes, candles, modelling pastes
SITC 35 Albuminoids, modified starches, glues, enzymes
SITC 36 Explosives, pyrotechnics, matches, pyrophorics, etc
SITC 37 Photographic or cinematographic goods
SITC 38 Miscellaneous chemical products
SITC 39 Plastics and articles thereof
SITC 40 Rubber and articles thereof
42
Commoditiy
Group
Description
SITC 41 Raw hides and skins (other than furskins) and leather
SITC 42 Articles of leather, animal gut, harness, travel goods
SITC 43 Furskins and artificial fur, manufactures thereof
SITC 44 Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal
SITC 45 Cork and articles of cork
SITC 46 Manufactures of plaiting material, basketwork, etc.
SITC 47 Pulp of wood, fibrous cellulosic material, waste etc
SITC 48 Paper & paperboard, articles of pulp, paper and board
SITC 49 Printed books, newspapers, pictures etc
SITC 50 Silk
SITC 51 Wool, animal hair, horsehair yarn and fabric thereof
SITC 52 Cotton
SITC 53 Vegetable textile fibres nes, paper yarn, woven fabric
SITC 54 Manmade filaments
SITC 55 Manmade staple fibres
SITC 56 Wadding, felt, nonwovens, yarns, twine, cordage, etc
SITC 57 Carpets and other textile floor coverings
SITC 58 Special woven or tufted fabric, lace, tapestry etc
SITC 59 Impregnated, coated or laminated textile fabric
SITC 60 Knitted or crocheted fabric
SITC 61 Articles of apparel, accessories, knit or crochet
SITC 62 Articles of apparel, accessories, not knit or crochet
SITC 63 Other made textile articles, sets, worn clothing etc
SITC 64 Footwear, gaiters and the like, parts thereof
SITC 65 Headgear and parts thereof
SITC 66 Umbrellas, walking-sticks, seat-sticks, whips, etc
SITC 67 Bird skin, feathers, artificial flowers, human hair
SITC 69 Ceramic products
SITC 70 Glass and glassware
SITC 72 Iron and steel
SITC 73 Articles of iron or steel
SITC 74 Copper and articles thereof
SITC 75 Nickel and articles thereof
SITC 76 Aluminium and articles thereof
SITC 78 Lead and articles thereof
SITC 79 Zinc and articles thereof
SITC 80 Tin and articles thereof
SITC 81 Other base metals, cermets, articles thereof
SITC 82 Tools, implements, cutlery, etc of base metal
SITC 83 Miscellaneous articles of base metal
SITC 85 Electrical, electronic equipment
SITC 86 Railway, tramway locomotives, rolling stock, equipment
SITC 87 Vehicles other than railway, tramway
SITC 90 Optical, photo, technical, medical, etc apparatus
SITC 91 Clocks and watches and parts thereof
SITC 92 Musical instruments, parts and accessories
SITC 93 Arms and ammunition, parts and accessories thereof
SITC 94 Furniture, lighting, signs, prefabricated buildings
SITC 95 Toys, games, sports requisites
SITC 96 Miscellaneous manufactured articles
Electronic products are mostly transported from China to Europe, whereas there is an increasing interest to move
automotive components, finished products (cars), pharmaceuticals, chemicals and food (including frozen foods)
from the EU to China.
Cases of specific services include the following ones:
43
• The Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe train carries electronics, cars, and medical equipment;
• The international cargo train (Chang’an) from Xi’an to Rotterdam carries trucks, steel, aluminium, apple juice and
electric power control units;
• The Zhengzhou-Xinjiang-Europe train carries electronic products, construction machinery, vehicles and parts,
medical equipment and other high value products;
• The Suzhou-Manchuria-Europe train (through Siberia) carries liquid crystal monitors and laptops.
Regarding temperature sensitive products, DHL introduced in January 2014 the first temperature-controlled rail
container service between China and Europe on a year-round basis.
Railways are good alternative to maritime transport in the case of high value and small volume goods. Therefore, in
the case of products that need to be delivered rather fast and on time, railways offer a good option.
Other cargo not mentioned above, is not typically transported by rail and generally does not present good candidate
for transport by rail (or road) from Europe to Asia or from Asia to Europe. In general, cheap and bulky products
such as raw materials, petroleum products and liquefied gas are not transported overland between Europe and Asia.
Synergies between overland and maritime transport
Overland and maritime is a typical combination of transport modes between Europe and Asia
transport and much attention is devoted to its development. The goal of such a synergy should be
to achieve the most efficient combination of low cost transport (maritime transport) and low
travel times (railways). An example that has gained much attention in recent years is the
transport of goods by sea from China to the port of Piraeus (Greece) and by rail from Piraeus to
major distribution centres in Central Europe. This type of transport may be enhanced by further
improving the connection and reducing the handling time during the transfer process, between
modes.
The strongest synergy between overland and maritime transport occurs in container
transportation. In recent decades the containerisation of cargos is developing rapidly due to
possibility for easy and fast change of transport modes. For example, the hinterland destinations
for containers from the port of Riga (Latvia) are the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Central Asian countries. To enhance synergy between overland and maritime
transport, it is necessary to develop rail infrastructure to those destinations in Asia and to open
new reliable and fast container train services with minimised border control, customs and other
bureaucratic burdens.
The Port of Riga has a strong interoperability between maritime and overland transport for dry
bulk cargo from the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Central Asian countries. To enhance
this, it is necessary to improve the port infrastructure and access infrastructure from/to
hinterland, to synchronize the port operations and to avoid bottlenecks in cargo handling. For
example, at the Port of Riga the maritime infrastructure is fully developed to handle large
Panamax type vessels, but the rail infrastructure at the port and access to rail infrastructure is not
sufficient to receive large amount of dry bulk cargo at the short period of time to allow
simultaneous rail-sea handling at the port.
When transporting export cargoes from Uzbekistan, synergy is observed in the transport between
such goods as cotton and mineral fertilizers. The greatest effect of the synergy is observed in the
reduction in the cost of transport of these types of goods to the nearest seaport.
44
The inter-modal change between maritime and railway transport can be developed by unifying
the railway system that differs the CIS countries from other European countries. For instance, in
Turkey a project was concluded in Samsun Port for a change of gauge of the wagons coming
from the CIS countries to Turkey.
The types of cargo that might have strong synergies between overland and maritime transport
include petroleum products, machinery and other manufacturing products, chemicals, building
minerals, solid mineral fuels, foodstuffs, agricultural products, crude oil, metal waste and metal
products, chemicals and fertilisers.
Challenges in Euro-Asian maritime transport
Maritime transport is without doubt the dominant transport mode between Asia and Europe,
which until recently, exhibited an average growth rate of over 6% per year. This continuous and
significant increase in maritime trade, along with other developments in the sector such as
increased vessel size, however, has resulted in major congestion problems at several ports and
other freight hubs, and has created serious environmental concerns. Traffic concentration
problems, both at ports and hinterlands are particularly evident in China, where there are several
constraints in access to the hinterland.
Slow steaming practices of the shipping lines aiming to reduce fuel cost and lengthy detours
often taken to avoid extremely congested ports, have significantly increased trip durations.
Congestion, along with the increase in labour costs, especially on the east coast of China, partly
attributed to the workers getting organised in unions and fighting for higher wages, have resulted
in several industries locating their manufacturing facilities in the western parts of China and
using air transport for moving goods to Europe. As air transport becomes more expensive, rail
may increase in relevance.
Another important problem in the maritime transport is the increasing number of piracy
incidents. Safety of goods and crew is very important and for this reason companies often prefer
to take longer routes instead of risking getting involved in a piracy event. This however does not
come without a consequence, as it leads to higher costs and increase in the overall travel time.
Cargo security, however, can also be an issue in overland transport between Europe and Asia.
Currently the competitiveness of rail transport from Asia to Europe is limited by undeveloped
rail infrastructure in some parts of Asia. Other limiting factors are border crossing (customs and
other complicated) bureaucratic procedures which increase the transportation time and costs.
Due to those reasons, air transport is the most appealing for high value, small in size or
perishable cargo.
Road transport is, for example, important for the Port of Riga. Of all containers coming by sea,
80 % are delivered to destinations in the hinterland (Baltic countries, Russian Federation,
Kazakhstan, Central Asia and even Afghanistan) by trucks. Undeveloped rail network in those
destinations makes road transport more competitive because of ‘door to door’ and ‘just in time’
deliveries.
An important problem for container cargo is a necessary repositioning of empty containers due
to imbalance in containerised cargo flow in direction of Europe and Asia. For most of transport
operators it is necessary to find ways how to increase containerised cargo flow in both directions,
to avoid transportation of empty containers.
45
In order to enhance the synergy between the transport modes, facilitation of border crossings
with simple border procedures are of utmost importance. Facilitation of the port procedures may
have direct and substantial effect on expediting the operations at the container terminals because
containerised cargoes require fast exchange of information.
The fact that there are two different transport legal regimes and documents as well as different
track gauges in OSJD member countries and OTIF members leads to additional formalities and
hence waste of time.
The biggest problem that exists in the Euro-Asian maritime transport refers to transport times
which are extremely long. This problem could be overcome by the use of more efficient sea
lines, combination with other modes of transport and improved time consuming procedures when
the ships are arriving and departing from ports. Proposals are:
• To improve communication and to simplify the exchange of information between the different
parts of the logistic chain.
• Customs have a key role in the facilitation and the boosting of trade. Customs rules and
procedures should be efficiently implemented with a view to shortening the time thereby
reducing the impact in terms of cost and time for business.
• A major challenge is to meet the environmental challenges that both market forces and society
impose upon transport industry in order to boost the blue and green economy and achieve
sustainable development.
47
I.3. Euro-Asian transport flows
At the moment the Eurasian trade is provided primarily by maritime routes.
In should be noted that the term “maritime route” used here actually means the intermodal
transport chain containing shipping services from Chinese to European ports, port transshipment
and the surface leg executed by rail or truck (or both of them). The sea section of such a route is
the longest part of the trip; besides that, the ocean shipping lines often arrange the entire delivery
and value added services acting as intermodal transport operators.
The railway links between China and Europe via the Central-Asian countries are the object of the
growing interest since they can offer transport products competitive under certain conditions.
The main advantage of rail connection is faster delivery. Several multinational companies have
started operating regular container block trains using different routes across the EATL zone.
Some of the successful services of this kind are described in section **.
However, the land bridge cannot—and likely will never—compete (in full meaning of the word)
with the maritime option because the potential throughput of overland routes is limited by 1–
2percent of what is carried by sea. But it may well establish itself as a complement to shipping
to increase the reliability of time-sensitive supply chains involving manufacturing production
sharing, such as high-value components in the automotive or computer industries.
I.3.1. Maritime routes situation
As it was mentioned, maritime transport is the dominating mode in the Euro-Asian trade.
Partially it reflects the general leading position commercial shipping holds in global trade thanks
to its incomparable economies of scale and punctual regular services highly valued in modern
supply chains.
On another hand, maritime transport shows high market flexibility that helps the industry to
survive through the crisis and keep the customers loyal. At least, three issues should be
mentioned in this connection: slow steaming, shipping alliances and flexible rates.
Slow steaming concept- reduced vessel speeds to save fuel and cut costs -adopted now by the
majority of shipping lines is one of the important features that changed the maritime business
since the 2009 crisis.
According to Clarksons Research, prior to implementing slow steaming, a typical structure for a
service from the Far East to Europe included eight ships in operation to maintain weekly calls
over a period of 56 days for full rotation (28 days for one leg). With the implementation of slow
steaming, the number of operated vessels had increased to ten to maintain weekly calls, while
transit times increased to 70 days for a full rotation (35 days for one leg). At the same time, such
a speed reduction can impact almost 50% of the bunker cost of a mega-containership and a little
bit more on the cost of a 5,000 TEU’s ship. Besides, slow steaming obviously decreases
environmental pollution which is a good news for “green-focused” customers.
48
Many shippers accept a shift to slow steaming since decreased tariff seems very attractive under
the crisis pressure. However, others with more expensive merchandise oppose the practice due
to increased pipeline inventory associated with longer transit times.
There is no generally accepted opinion about the future of slow steaming. But anyway it gives a
chance for surface rail operators to offer new services to customers who believe that slow
steaming parameters are not acceptable for their supply chains.
Figure 2.1.China forwarders freight index, China-Europe trade lane, 2010-2016
Source http://en.shippingchina.com/scfi/index/detail/line_id/3/date1/2010-01-01/date2/2016-01-
01.html
Shipping alliances creation is the market trend that reflects the market players’ intention to
establish the sustainable large-scale units that will be able to optimize the participants’ assets
utilization and services on the main trade lanes. Vessel-sharing within the alliance helps the
carriers to increase service frequency without introducing extra vessels. Rate “harmonizing”
within the alliances, although legally prohibited, is also said to take place.
At the moment there are four main container carrier alliances approved by the regulators in EU,
US and China: 2M, Ocean 3, CKYHE and G61. These structures control more than 70% of the
cargo volumes moving in the major east-west trades.
The exact impact of this new alignment of the major container ship operators has yet to be fully
assessed. Shippers are advocating greater scrutiny and the need to conduct reviews to determine
how the alliances are impacting on the industry. But anyway the alliances seem to be the flexible
1Thefour alliances mentioned include the following carriers: 2M - Maersk and Mediterranean
Shipping Co., Ocean 3 - CMA CGM, United Arab Shipping Co. and China Shipping, CKYHE -
Cosco, “K” Line, Yang Ming, Hanjin, Evergreen, G6 - APL, MOL, Hyundai Merchant Marine,
OOCL, NYK Line, Hapag-Lloyd.
49
instrument that maritime container carriers will use on the East-West trade lane to strengthen
their market position.
Figure 2.2.Market share of alliances on the East-West trade lanes (Source:
https://www.flexport.com/blog/what-are-ocean-alliances)
Flexible rates is one of the main market instruments of ocean container carriers. Their prices
promptly reflect the changes of the market situation thus keeping the business competitive. The
crisis period illustrates that very well. Figure 2.3 shows the dynamics of the Shanghai –
Rotterdam container rate from December, 2011 to September, 2013. In the beginning of the
period the rate per 40ft container increased from about $800 up to $3800 during the 4 months
period and then fell down to $2300 in the next 6 months following the market conjuncture.
50
Fugure 2.3.Shanghai – Rotterdam container rate December, 2011 to September, 2013 (USD per
40ft container). Source: Drewry
The EATL routes in their competition with maritime routes can’t show such a flexibility.
National railway companies operating on the Eurasian lanes have to follow the tariff agreements
and sometimes get the rate change approval from the governmental agencies - which is usually a
long enough procedure which is not keeping pace with market changes.
The above shown example also demonstrates that simple comparison of average rates on the
EATL routes and on maritime routes that is often discussed does not show the actual picture. It
should be recognized that in any case maritime operators react to market fluctuations much faster
and more accurate than the railway enterprises.
51
Figure 2.4. Containerized cargo flows on major East–West container trade routes (million
TEUs),1995–2014 (Source: World Maritime Review, 2015)
Table 2.1.Containerized cargo flows on major East–West container trade routes (million TEUs
and % annual change), 2009–2014
Source: World Maritime Review, 2015
53
I.3.2. EATL main routes general overview
During the stage I the EATL project had identified a strategy for the development of Euro-Asian
Transport Links, taking into account the major routes along the four main Euro-Asian Corridors
that had been previously agreed upon at international level and that represent an extension of the
Pan-European Transport Corridors further eastwards. It was also decided, on the one hand, that
major routes along these corridors should encompass intermodal aspects, including
transshipment points, and, on the other hand that border crossing problems should be addressed.
The project had identified the rail, inland water and road transport linkages that are of central
importance in tackling the following interrelated problems:
- to develop transport options alternative to maritime transport between Asia and Europe;
- to better connect the landlocked countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus with the global
markets;
- to improve conditions for trade within EATL area itself, primarily – in the Central Asian
region.
The identified EATL routes therefore not only aim at improving connectivity amongst EATL
countries, but also at connecting the EATL with other existing transport networks in Europe and
Asia. Among them are the Trans-European Transport network (TEN-T network) in EU-28, the
Pan-European Transport Corridors (PECT), the TRACECA and the rail and road networks in
Asia.
The nine rail and nine road routes constitute the core infrastructure network for the transport
links between Europe and Asia across Central Asia and the Caucasus. The routes stretch over
more than 10 000 kilometers in the East-West direction, and cross over 15 countries.
Specifically, the EATL rail routes extend the Trans-European Railway (TER) network eastward
and connect it with the Trans-Asian Railway Network (TAR).
The EATL road routes connect the Trans-Asian Highways (TAH) with the TEN-T routes. Many
of the EATL routes also coincide, either fully or partially, with other road networks and
corridors, such as the TRACEA, PECT, the six Central Asia Region Economic Cooperation
Program (CAREC) corridors, and the Organization for Cooperation of international Railways
(OJSD) rail corridors.
As the quality of physical infrastructure of the EATL routes is uneven and gaps in the network
exist, the EATL project had identified and prioritized infrastructure investment needs to close
existing gaps as well as upgrade and modernize infrastructure, equipment and facilities along the
routes (i.e. electrification of railways, building and upgrading container depots or intermodal
terminals).
54
I.3.3. EATL rail routes and railway transport
Out of the nine EATL rail routes, six are in the East—West Direction, and three in the North—
South direction. The rail routes 1 and 2 are already used by regular or ad-hoc freight trains
connecting Asia, East Russia and Europe.
The EATL Rail Route 1 (known also as the Trans-Siberian route) is over 10 000 km long, its
branchesstretching from the eastern borders of the EU (Finland, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania) to
the Russian Pacificport of Nakhodka and the Russian-Chinese border. Route 1 extends the Pan-
European Transport Corridors(PETCs) II, V and IX eastwards. Its principal advantages include a
small number of border crossings,the electrified traction and the uniform (1520 mm) gauge. Parts
of the route situated within the Europeanpart of the Russian Federation belong to the E-rail and
E-combined transport networks. Most of the routeis also part of the TAR network. At present,
Route 1 provides the backbone for the long-distance surfacecontainer transport between Europe
and East Asia. The capacity of Rail Route 1 in the eastern part of Russia is limited; at the
moment it is planned by the Government of Russia to increase it and to modernize the Trans-
Siberian railway having in mind not only the Euro-Asian traffic but the socio-economic
development of the entire region.
EATL Rail Route 2 spans over more than 8 000 km from the eastern borders of the EU with
Belarusand Ukraine across the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Eastern China to the ports of
Lianyungangand Shanghai. Route 2 extends PETCs II and IX towards Asia with most parts of
this route belongingto the TAR network. It coincides with Route 1 on the sections between the
EU borders and the city ofYekaterinburg in central Russia. Compared to Route 1, there are some
disadvantages: firstly, the broad1520 mm gauge changes at the Kazakh-Chinese border to the
1435 mm standard prevailing in China;secondly, sections of Route 2 have not been electrified;
thirdly, there are two additional border crossings and, lastly, the capacity of the section between
Kazakhstan and the Chinese ports is limited.Уточнить
The main branch of the EATL Rail Route 3 leads from the south-eastern EU border (Hungary-
Romania)to the Lianyungang and Shanghai ports. Route 3 extends PETCs IV, VIII and IX as
well as the TRACECAto Eastern China; significant parts of the route belong to the TAR
network. Route 3 includes two ferrycrossings, from Constanta on the Romanian Black Sea coast
to the Georgian ports of Batumi or Potiand from the Azerbaijan port of Baku on the Caspian Sea
to the Aktau port in Kazakhstan. Before reachingChina, Route 3 and its branches pass through a
significant number of countries and border crossings;gauge changes are necessary at the borders
of EECCA countries with China and Romania.
The EATL Rail Route 4 provides an alternative link between South-Eastern Europe and the
Lianyungangand Shanghai ports, passing through Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, Uzbekistan and
Kazakhstan. It provides anextension to PETCs IV, VIII, X and the TRACECA route to the
Chinese seaboard, also with parts ofthe route belonging to the TAR network. There are two
limitations to that route: there are two gaugechanges (Iran-Turkmen border and the Kazakh-
Chinese border) and large sections of Route 4 have not been electrified.
The EATL Rail Route 5 connects northern Europe to Iran, extending from the Finnish-Russian
bordersouthward to the Caspian Sea and terminating at the port of Bandar Abbas in the Persian
Gulf. Almostthe entire route is part of the TAR network. For the time being, the capacity of
Route 5 is limited by the bottlenecks on the Iranian side of the Caspian Sea where major
installations in the Anzali port and Rasht remain incomplete.?? When the construction work is
completed, Route 5 could significantly reducefreight transport times between Iran and the EU.
55
The EATL Rail Route 6 provides an alternative connection between the eastern borders of the
EU (Hungary,Poland) with Russia’s Pacific coast, while moving across Ukraine and Russian
Federation (south of Route1) towards the port of Vladivostok as well as traversing briefly the
Kazakh territory. Route 6 providesan extension of PETCs III, V and IX towards the Pacific
Ocean. Again, parts of the route belong to theTAR network.
The EATL Rail Route 7 provides an alternative connection between the EU and the
Lianyungang andShanghai ports, passing through the territory of Ukraine, the Russian
Federation, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistanand China. It extends PETCs III and V given that the whole
route belongs to the TAR network. Large sections of Route 7 on the Kazakh, Uzbek and Chinese
territory are not electrified.
The EATL Rail Route 8 passes from Poland to Ukraine, southern Russia, Georgia and
Azerbaijan tothe Iranian border at Astara. Thus it provides another extension to PETCs III and V
with most parts ofthe route belonging to the TAR network.
The EATL Rail Route 9 provides a connection from the northern Europe through the Russian
Federationto Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Significant parts of the route
belong to the TAR network. Since long sections of Route 9 are not electrified, the capacity of the
route is subject to limitations.
Figure 2.5. Scheme of EATL Rail Routes
56
Table2.2. EATL Rail Routes
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the largest economies in the Central Asian region and the countries
with the most developed rail networks, carry the greatest volumes of freight transported by rail in
Central Asia. The rail routes of the region going primarily via these countries serve two
complementary purposes: to support the Central Asian countries’ trade with Russia and Europe
or with China and to provide opportunities for Euro-Asian transit trade.
Distance is one of the main factors influencing the modal choice. The land route from the North-
Western Xinjiang Uygur region of China to destinations in Germany exceeds 7 thousand
kilometers. The distance between Almaty (Kazakhstan) and major economic centers in China is
over 4 thousand kilometers which compares with crossing the United States from coast to coast.
57
Taking into account the typical distances on the EATL network and the absence of the inland
water routes railways should be the dominating mode developing very fast. Unfortunately, the
EATL railways face the common problem – national borders.
These borders do not only cause the delays for border-check and customs formalities. If so, the
interruption and the fragmentation of the railway traffic could probably have been successfully
removed. But the existence of national borders separates national railway systems which, in turn,
leads to fragmentation of railway services.
Different technological standards (including different gauge), different types of electric power
traction, different tariff systems, different management principles, uneven quality and capacity of
network sections and, finally, the contradictory economic interests of neighboring railways, all
brought together, create a serious problem of railways interoperability. It is enough to say that
the European railway reform carried on for 15 years within the integrated economic environment
and aimed to solve the same problem is far enough from successful ending.
In spite of that numerous logistic companies operate Euro-Asian railway services using the
principle advantage of the surface route – shorter lead time in comparison with maritime routes.
Some of the cases are described in the next paragraph.
Railway container services across the EATL routes
COSCO Logistics.COSCO Logistics, the largest 3PL in China uses the routes shown in the
Figure 2.6. The commodities transported include equipment, tools and building materials for
cement production, electrical power station equipment including capacitor set, capacitor voltage
transformer substation, and monitoring system and finally well drilling, logging, and well
cementation for Kazakhstan oil fields. Currently, COSCO is examining other options with
combination of sea and rail transport for transportation between China and Europe. One of the
options is for the cargo to enter Europe through the port of Piraeus in Greece and then be
transported by rail to central and northern Europe. [IDWP#5]
Figure 2.6. COSCO Logistics railway routes
DHL.Deutshce Post -DHL uses several routes to establish the services from Asia to Europe.
Since 2011, DHL has been running a daily intermodal service from Shanghai to Moscow via the
58
Trans-Siberian Railway. A weekly express freight train service was launched in 2013 from
Chengdu in western China, across Kazakhstan to its cargo port in Poland and then in Russia and
Belarus by truck or train, with travel time of 12-14 days. The transported products are mainly
electronics, machinery, pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
In January 2014 the company introduced the first temperature-controlled rail container service
between China and Europe on a year-round basis. In March 2014, DHL Global Forwarding
announced the development of rail-based forwarding services on the China-Europe route via a
new joint venture called United Transport and Logistics Company (UTLC), which plans to
operate door-to-door delivery times of 21 days[IDWP#5].
DB Schenker. In 1973 the company started providing rail services through the Eurasian land
bridge by running the first container along the Trans-Siberian railway route. In 2008 the first
train with goods between Beijing and Hamburg was launched and in the beginning of 2009 a
weekly regular service between Shanghai and Beijing with Hamburg, Nuremberg and Duisburg
was offered. The products transported are mainly from the automotive industry, chemical
industry and manufactures of household goods. In 2009 in cooperation with the Russian
Railways (RZD), DB Schenker Logistics established the Trans Eurasia Logistics GmbH.
DB Schenker operates also in the Northern rail route from Shanghai to Moscow and then to
Duisburg through the Trans-Siberian line with a transit time of 18-20 days. In September of 2011
a regular train service began to operate for BMW on the route from Leipzig to Shenyang
(eastbound). In November, a daily container train service was launched for this destination
exclusively for BMW for automotive components. From 2012 the company offers a weekly
service from Chongqing to Duisburg for IT customers. The transport time for a block train to
reach its destination in Duisburg is 18 days. Further to this service, in September 2014 the first
freight train run from Hamburg to Zhengzhou in China. The duration of the journey is around 17
days and is about 20 days faster than by sea. [IDWP#5].
KTZ Express.KTZ Express, established in 2013 and being the national multimodal transport and
logistics company of Kazakhstan Railways (KTZ), provides rail freight services that take 16
days through Kazakhstan territory, twice or thrice less compared to sea shipping. The products
transported are pharmaceuticals, farm produce and electronics with a focus on electronic
companies that have their plants in Chongqing or to their suppliers such as Foxconn Technology
for Apple Inc. and Acer Inc. Industries such as Hewlett Packard and Toyota Tsusho already use
this rail route. There is also an interest from Europe for dedicated block train services to Asia for
products such as fruit and automotive parts [23]. In October 2014, the company plans a new rail
freight service from Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Wuhan and Xi’an to Europe, announced by the
Governments of China and Kazakhstan [IDWP#5].
Yuxinou (Chongqing) Logistics Co., Ltd.TheYuxinou (Chongqing) Logistics Co., Ltd. provides
freight railway services between Asia and Europe. One of the main services is the Yuxinou train
which travels from China via Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Poland to Germany with travel
time 16 days. It’s one of the weekly services leaving the industrial hub of Chongqing and having
as customer electronic companies such as Hewlett-Packard Co., Acer Inc., Apple Inc. and
supplier Foxconn Technology Co [IDWP#5].
The Far East Land Bridge Ltd.The Far East Land Bridge is one of the first logistic companies,
which provided railway services between Europe and Asia and has its base in Vienna, Austria. In
2007 they started providing two-way container rail services via the Trans-Siberian Railway route
and European and Chinese rail networks. The main customers of the company are industries such
as BMW, Audi, Volkswagen and Samsung [IDWP#5].
59
Wuhan-Europe freight trains. The Wuhan-Europe freight train is express cargo train that carries
containers between Wuhan and European cities. At present, Wuhan-Europe freight train links
Wuhan with over 20 countries, including Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia, Belarus, 5
countries in Central Asia, etc. Besides customized trains and public trains, random trains and
LCL services were also provided to serve small and micro enterprises.
In 2014, Wuhan-Europe freight train ran 4 lines, with two passing customs at Alataw Pass, and
the other two passing customs at Khorgos and Manzhouli, respectively.
2015 has witnessed the opening of two-way freight trains linking Wuhan with Hamburg and
Duisburg in Germany, as well as a “Russia-Manzhouli-Wuhan” timber train. A train linking
Wuhan with Minsk of Belarus was launched on Sept. 24, 2015. Besides, the China-Europe
freight train links Wuhan with Moscow on Oct. 24, 2015, forming a bilateral flow with the
previous “Russia-Manzhouli-Wuhan” timber train.
Figure 2.7.Wuhan-Europe freight trains operation scheme (source – Hubay Government site)
In November 2015, Wuhan Asia-Europe Logistics Co., Ltd signed commerce and trade logistics
strategic reciprocal agreement with 12 Chinese and Russian logistics companies. Wuhan Asia-
Europe Logistics Co., Ltd. announced on January 5, 2016 that Wuhan freight trains ran a total of
164 shifts in 2015, carrying 14,912 TEUs. The growth rate exceeded 500%, ranking first
nationwide. The main cargoes transported are:
- from Wuhan: electronic equipment, automobiles, clothes, general merchandise of companies
including Foxconn, Dongfeng, AOC, WISCO, etc.;
- from Europe: plastic floor, plastic compression roller, auto parts, cosmetics, fishing gears,
timber, etc.
It is planned that Wuhan-Europe freight train will extend operations westwards and establish
offices in countries like France [19].
China Railway Express .China Railway Express Co., Ltd. was founded in 1993 and is based in
Beijing, China. The first China – Europe container block train under the family brand “China
Railway Express” arrived in Poland. On 8 June 2016 the train set off from station in Chengdu,
the capital of the Chinese province of Sichuan, then crossed the territories of Kazakhstan, Russia
and Belarus and arrived 12 days later in Warsaw.
60
The twenty-two carriage train delivered electronics goods and auto parts to the Polish State
Railways (PKP) Cargo Terminal in Warsaw. The arrival of the China Railway Express marked
the opening of the New Silk Road - a Chinese project to open a new commercial route linking
Asia and Europe. At the same time a container block train with Polish goods set off in the
opposite direction to China.
OSJD site
http://en.osjd.org/newso/public/en?STRUCTURE_ID=5049&layer_id=5541&refererLayerId=55
43&refererPageId=4&id=45
The business model of railway transportation within the described supply chains is currently
based on the “corporate” scheduled block trains serving individual shippers and operating from
plant to plant (or from the plant to logistic center). These trains support constant guaranteed
industrial cargo flows of the selected customers. Most of the examples described in the previous
paragraph follow this model.
The next step – introduction of public regular services for customers shipping less than full train
loads – is more complicated. To make the business viable and to attract enough traffic the
transport operator should contact numerous shippers not only in the origin point, but all along the
route. Intermediate stops on the way mean also contracting local terminal operators and probably
freight forwarders.
At the moment there are few known services of this type. Examples?** Some of them had
started as scheduled services but then shifted to the “departure on readiness” regime.
Prospects and opportunities for EATL transit rail routes
In spite of fact that numerous railway services have been introduced or tested on the overland
EATL rail routes connecting Europe and Asia (see above), they still play a marginal role for
transcontinental transit traffic. Different opinions exist on the future growth of Euro-Asian
freight volumes to be captured by these routes (Rastogi et al, 2014) but most of the sources
points to the fact that maritime transport will likely remain the dominant mode in the Europe-
Asia transport market (no less than 95 percent), at least for some years to come.
There are many causes for low use of the land bridge for transcontinental trade. Some of them
can be eliminated or, probably, “softened” in the course of physical improvement of the
infrastructure and the institutional reforms. Others (railway costs vs. shipping costs, border
procedures, different technical standards on railways) will likely be in place for decades.
Most of the commentators agree that three main factors can influence the development of the
overland railway Eurasian services: a) development unified legal regime across the Eurasian
railway links b) appropriate choice of the business/commodity segment by railway and logistic
operators and c) smart logistic decisions, probably, in synergy with maritime or air transport
transportation.
Development the unified legal regime. The principle problem for EATL area is that different
legal regimes for rail transportation are in place across it. The majority of the EATL countries
are members of the OSJD and party to their legal agreements, such as the SMGS. Others are
members of the OTIF and their legal regimes, such as the COTIF/CIM 92, and some are
members of both. European countries are also members of the OTIF and contracting parties to
61
the COTIF/CIM, with some countries – Poland, the Baltic States and several others (9 states in
total) being members of both organizations and contracting parties to both legal regimes.
When the railway route lays across countries using different regimes two different consignment
notes for rail freight, each based on the respective legal regime, are to be filled in. Railway
operators or freight forwarders therefore have to re-write a consignment note when crossing into
the territory where the different legal regime applies.
The legal regimes also differ in other important aspects such as liabilities, and therefore increase
uncertainty for cross-border rail freight transport crossing EATL countries.
A common CIM/SMGS consignment note has been developed to avoid reissuing of transport
documents and in so doing to simplify customs clearance. But, according to DB Schenker,
“CIM/SMGS consignment notes in both directions are only used in26–27 per cent of cases” as
not all customs administrations accept the document.
Customs authorities should accept the joint CIM/SMGS consignment note as an equivalent to a
transit customs declaration. The benefits of the joint CIM/SMGS are significant for reducing
delays in cross-border rail transport as mentioned by DB Schenker -“its use reduces the standing
time of rolling stock at borders from three days to 1.5 hours. This considerably increases the
competitiveness of rail freight transportation.”
The CIM/ SMGS consignment note is also issued as an electronic document so that it can be
exchanged electronically in advance with authorities and other transport parties.
Certain steps are made to change the legal situation in the radical way.
In 2013 a joint declaration expressing willingness to create a common legal regime for rail traffic
across Asia and Europe was signed by 37 countries at a ministerial meeting in Genève. The
signatories are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Pakistan,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
The aim is to establish 'a unified set of transparent and predictable legal conditions for
international rail freight transport “from the Atlantic to the Pacific”, equivalent to the regimes for
competing road, air and water transport.
The planned general conditions of transport for Euro-Asian rail transport, known as GTC
EurAsia, would include a common consignment note and 'to the extent possible' a single liability
regime.
Operators, associations and other stakeholders have been invited to co-operate in the
development of GTC EurAsia, which is supported by the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe.
Following the declaration signature, the Group of Experts set up for this purpose by the UNECE
has started its work to give substance to this unified law.
Rather than creating law overarching the two legal regimes of the CIM UR and SMGS, or creating
autonomous law, OTIF advocates and will defend the establishment of an interface regime between
the CIM UR and SMGS, with a common consignment note and a common liability regime. With this
62
in mind, the validity of COTIF/CIM and SMGS for transport that is governed strictly by their
respective rules would not be called into question.
The question of the legal form of the institution intended to support this new instrument is very
complex. OTIF believes this should be discussed at the end of the process, as it depends to a great
extent on what the law contains. OTIF uses the model of COTIF to propose high-level provisions,
giving the sector the responsibility of deciding the precise conditions for applying them.
At the same time, OTIF's concept was opposed by that of OSJD, which called for the creation of a
new convention to replace the CIM UR and SMGS.
OTIF and OSJD agreed to set up a technical working group (joint OTIF-OSJD working group in
which CIT will also take part) which could start preparing the application documents for the new
Euro-Asian legal regime
In any case, it is essential that the provisions of the new instrument are simple and practical and
enable rail transport undertakings to develop. If this is not the case, as at present, the par-ties to the
contract of carriage will choose to apply the agreed national law, with all the legal risks this entails.
The aim of the developments taking place under the aegis of the UNECE is to avoid this risk.
Choosing appropriate commodities and business segment. The list of commodities suitable
for railway transportation in Eurasian trade covers a rather limited market niche which includes
high value and small volume goods. Those are goods for which air transport is too expensive,
while maritime transport is too slow. Therefore, in the case of products that need to be delivered
rather fast and on time, railways offer a good option.
According to [12] the list of such goods includes:
pharmaceuticals
electronic products
IT products
fashion products
footwear
automotive components
tires
specific construction materials
timber and wood
chemicals
fertilizers
white goods
pipes
particular agricultural products
63
machinery
Cargo not mentioned above is not typically transported by rail and generally does not present
good candidate for overland transport. In particular, cheap and bulky products such as raw
materials, petroleum products and liquefied gas which form the basis (volumewise) of the cargo
flows in world trade are not and probably will not be transported overland between Europe and
Asia in reasonably high volumes.
Synergies between railway and maritime transport. Railway+shippingis a typical
combination for intercontinental transport and logistics decisions. Currently much attention is
devoted to its development.
The main goal of such a synergy is to achieve the most efficient combination of low cost
transport (maritime transport) and low travel times (railways).
The strongest synergy between overland and maritime transport occurs in container
transportation. In recent decades the containerization of cargoes is developing rapidly due to
possibility for easy and fast change of transport modes.
The most developed model of such synergy is the traditional intermodal or “consecutive” modal
combination, when the maritime leg is complemented by a railway section of the route.
An example that has gained much attention in recent years is the transport of goods by sea from
China to the port of Piraeus (Greece) and then by rail to major distribution centers in Central
Europe. This type of transport may be enhanced by further improving the connection and
reducing the handling time during the transfer process, between modes.
At the same time, under certain conditions other types of cargo aside from containerized might
have strong synergies between overland and maritime transport. Among them are petroleum
products, machinery and other manufacturing products, chemicals, building minerals, solid
mineral fuels, foodstuffs, agricultural products, crude oil, metal waste and metal products,
chemicals and fertilizers. To provide this type of synergy, it is necessary to improve the port
infrastructure and access infrastructure from/to hinterland, to synchronize the port operations and
to avoid bottlenecks in cargo handling.
For example, the Port of Riga has a strong interoperability between maritime and overland
transport for dry bulk cargo from the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Central Asian
countries. Its maritime infrastructure is fully developed to handle large Panamax type vessels,
but the rail infrastructure at the port and access to rail infrastructure is not sufficient to receive
large amount of dry bulk cargo at the short period of time to allow simultaneous rail-sea
handling at the port [12].
The second model of sea-rail synergy is the combination of maritime and railway delivery in
parallel commodity flows within a logistic solution known as “faster than sea, cheaper than
rail’’.
Such a solution allows for more flexibility than shipping and fewer costs than pure rail (or air
freight) for time-sensitive shipments. Within this model, unlike the “consecutive” model of sea-
rail synergy, the shares of “cheap” and “fast” flows can be regulated. Within these chains rail
transportation is used for a minority share freight so as to be able to smooth and reduce their
inventory requirements, fill in the “gaps” in market demand or to be fast with some market
novelties. This solution is used for time-sensitive supply chains involving manufacturing
production such as electronics and auto parts.
64
According to expert opinions, the following conditions can provide effective and sustainable sea
+ rail synergy in the logistics chains connecting Asia and Europe:
Asian terminal points should be located in western and central China (for example, as far east as
Chongqing),
European terminal points should be located in Eastern Europe (as far west as Berlin)
Guaranteed flow of high-value and time-sensitive cargo (automotive parts, electronics, etc.) from
one shipper or a limited group of shippers as a basis for sustainable regular service.
Railway reforms in EATL countries
The end of the 20-th and the beginning of the 21-st century is the period of global railway
reforms. The general aim of these reforms is to make railway industry competitive with road
transport under the current economic conditions.
“Traditional” state-owned railways with their monolith opaque structure and monopolistic
business approach usually fail to meet the requirements of modern logistic market and supply
chains. They are not flexible enough, their tariffs are not market-oriented, service quality is poor.
The picture can be added by unsatisfactory punctuality of traditional railway services. This is not
a surprise that railways in almost all the economics were losing market in favor of road transport
in spite of higher costs and bad environmental reputation of the trucking industry.
One of the most demanded services of railways in modern supply chains, including
transcontinental, is transportation of containers (and other intermodal units – contrailers and
swap-bodies) by block trains on regular basis. To provide this service certain technological level
is obligatory, but not enough.
To provide competitive rail-based intermodal services the independent entity should exist that
will specialize on this particular activity. This entity should be able to:
- make free deals with freight forwarders, terminal operators, trucking companies, logistic
providers to subcontract additional services (or, in turn, to be subcontracted in the third party’s
business);
- provide cost-based competitive tariffs and have the opportunity to change them according to
the market situation;
- make arrangements with the infrastructure operators about routes and schedules necessary to
design the competitive service;
- undertake all the mentioned above not only within the borders of the national railway, but on
the cross-border basis as well.
In other words, effective long-haul container railway service developing on their own economic
basis without the artificial support from outside needs a liberalized market-oriented environment
across the railways all along the entire route. Such an environment can be created in the course
of the railway structural reforms.
This section contains the brief overview of the railway reforms progress in EATL countries.
For the purpose of this review all the EATL states can be divided into several groups.
65
The first group is formed by the EU member states which follow the EC railway reform
directives also known as EC railway packages.
The principle idea of the “European reform model” introduced by the directives is separating the
infrastructure management from operations to establish the platform for competition of carriers
“on rails”. Besides reaching this main goal the enormous efforts are undertaken to provide the
interoperability of national railways and railway operators in technological, economical,
commercial and legal aspects.
In particular, the EC railway directives envisage the following basic principles that should be
implemented by the Member States (MS):
Management independence of Railway Undertakings (RU)
RUs according to EU law means any public or private undertaking the principal business of
which is to provide services for the transport of goods and/or passengers by rail with a
requirement that the undertaking must ensure traction; this also includes undertakings which
provide traction only.
MS must take the appropriate measures to ensure that RU are independent with regards to
management, administration and internal control over administrative, economic and accounting
matters, thereby holding assets, budgets and accounts separate from those belonging to the State.
MS must also take the necessary action to enable RU to adapt their activities to the market and
allow their own management bodies to be responsible for the management of their activities, and
to be managed according to principles which apply to commercial companies.
Separation between infrastructure management and transport operations
The body or undertaking responsible in particular for establishing and maintaining railway
infrastructure is called Infrastructure Manager (IM).
MS must ensure the separation of infrastructure management and transport operations by
keeping separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets and publishing them individually
for business relating to the provision of transport services by railways undertakings and for
business relating to the management of railway infrastructure.
Access to railway infrastructure and capacity allocation
The Railway Undertakings will be accorded access to the infrastructure in all other EU MS for
the operation of all rail freight services and international passenger services.
Infrastructure capacity is allocated by an independent body, which may be the IM provided it is
totally independent of the railway undertakings.
Network statement
Infrastructure management (IM) must publish a network statement containing the following
information in particular:
- the nature of the infrastructure which is available to railway undertakings and the conditions for
accessing it;
- the charging principles, including likely changes over the next five years;
66
- the principles and criteria for capacity allocation (characteristics, restrictions, procedures and
deadlines).
Infrastructure charges
Infrastructure charges should be set and collected by an independent charging body, generally
the IM - provided it is not dependent on the railway undertakings
Regulatory bodies
MS must establish a regulatory body (RB) which is independent of IMs, RUs or any other
authority involved in the award of a public service contract. Any RU which considers that it has
been unfairly treated or discriminated against may appeal to this body.
Operating licenses
The MS must designate the body responsible for issuing railway operating licences. The
licensing authority's decisions are subject to judicial review.
The licensing authority may regularly review the situation, ay suspend, revoke or amend the
operating license under certain circumstances. RU shall also comply with those provisions of
national law which are compatible with EU law with regard to safety, workers protection,
customs, etc.
Infrastructure integration to provide competitive freight transportation
MS has to establish international market-oriented Rail Freight Corridors to meet three challenges
concerning:
- the European integration of rail infrastructures by strengthening co-operation between
Infrastructure Managers on investment and traffic management;
- a balance between freight and passenger traffic along the Rail Freight Corridors, giving
adequate capacity and priority for freight in line with market needs and ensuring that common
punctuality targets for freight trains are met;
- the intermodality between rail and other transport modes by integrating terminals into the
corridor management and development.
Besides that, certain requirements concerning safety provision, accidents and incidents
investigation, certification and others are envisaged by the EC railway directives.
Although different EU-member states implement the requirements envisaged by the EC railway
packages in their own way sand at different pace, considerable general progress is reached in this
work and the main development direction is quite clear. For this reason the experience of
Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, is not described in this section2.
The second group is formed by the EATL countries that have expressed their intention to join
the EU.
2 Cyprus and Malta have no railways
67
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and
Turkey are now within the Stabilization and Association Process which precedes the country’s
accession to the European Union. The political choice made by these countries predetermines the
development of railway system restructuring – it is to be designed according to the principles of
the EC railway packages described above.
The EU experts regularly evaluate the progress the candidate countries make in their preparation
to join the EU, in particular – in the sphere of railway reforms. The results of such observations
published in 2013 and 2015 (together with other relevant information) are used in this section.
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The railway network in Bosnia and Herzegovina extends for some
1,017 km. It is based on a standard gauge (1,435 mm) and the majority is single track (92
percent). Around 76 percent of the network is electrified. The only non-electrified part of the
railway network is located in the north-eastern part of the country, around Tuzla, but it is
important in traffic terms. All lines are single-track, except one section of 87 kilometers of
Corridor Vc between Zenica and Doboj.
Prior to 1991, the railways in Bosnia and Herzegovina were a fully integrated part of the former
Yugoslavian railways. When Bosnia and Herzegovina become independent in 1991, a new state
railway company was formed and soon divided into three regional state owned companies
reflecting the ethnic divisions of the country. In 2001, according to a new railway the railway
companies in the Croat and Bosnian parts of the country were merged to create Željeznice
Federacije Bosne i Herzegovine (ŢFBH). However, the railway in the RS, Željeznice Republike
Srpske(ŢRS), remained separate.
Currently the sector includes two vertically integrated railway companies, and a state level
coordinating body, Bosne i Herzegovine i Bosanskohercegovacke Željeznice Javna Korporacije
(ZBHŢJK).
Both railway companies linger in acritical financial situation. In both companies the separation
of operational functions from infrastructure management has not yet occurred.
Railways of Republika Srpska have not yet adopted their network statements. The opening of the
rail market is at an early stage. The railway institutions fall short of staff.
Rehabilitation works on rail tracks are in progress. However, the bottleneck at Ivan Tunnel and
Bradina ramp, which prevents the transit of Ro-La (trucks on train) trains and 40ft containers
from the port of Ploče, is hampering the development of combined transport.
According to the EU experts [23], preparations in the railways area are at an early stage.
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The rail network of FYR Macedonia is small,
with 699km of single track rail—with only 235 km electrified. The main line of Pan-European
Corridor X traverses FYR Macedonia from Tabanovce to the capital Skopje to Gevgelija, as well
as the branch Corridor Xd from Veles to Bitola to Kremenica (146 km). Along Corridor X the
line is electrified. The country is also traversed by Pan-European Corridor VIII. This corridor
connects the Black Sea through Bulgaria and FYR Macedonia to Albania and the Adriatic Sea.
International transport accounts for 98 percent of freight transport, most of which is transported
through Corridor X.
In 2007 Macedonian Railways (Makedonski Železnici; MŢ) was reorganized into two separate
joint stock companies—a public enterprise in charge of infrastructure management, Macedonian
68
Railways Infrastructure (MŢ-I) and a transport company in charge of passenger and freight
operations, Macedonian Railways Transport (MŢ-T). This change was part of a broader railway
reform program aimed at making the FYR Macedonian rail sector comply with EU directives.
A new set of railway legislation was adopted, that regulated, in particular, general organization
of the railway system, principles of access to the railway infrastructure, mechanism the
collection of the track fees, methods of assignment of the infrastructure capacities, the network
statement preparation, the functions of the independent and autonomous regulatory body,
relations between the railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager, financing of the
railway infrastructure and other issues. Almost all the requirements of the first EC railway
packageDirectives have been implemented by this legislation.
An independent Regulatory Agency was established in 2009. The network statement is
published.
At the same time, high track-access charges and market closure further constrainthe income of
the infrastructure manager without having resulted in the tangible effects on thestate operator or
the transport sector as the government had hoped for. The rail marketremains closed to licensed
EU operators until accession.
According to the EU experts [26], further alignment with the EC railway packages is necessary
as the railway market remains closed to competition.
Currently the EBRD is making a loan of up to €145 million to finance the modernization of
railway infrastructure in FYR Macedonia and to strengthen the country’s regional transport links.
http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P083499/railways-reform?lang=en&tab=overview
http://www.ebrd.com/news/2014/ebrd-connects-macedonian-railway-corridor-to-turkey-.html
http://www.seetoint.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/769_fyrom2-taiex-rw-.pdf
http://library.tee.gr/digital/m2476/m2476_evmolpidis.pdf
Montenegro. The rail network consists of 248 km of track only. Of these, 168 km are electrified
and there are no double lines. A 167 km main line connects the Port of Bar on the Adriatic city to
the capital, Podgorica, and to the border with Serbia with an 83 km second line that connects
Niksic to Podgorica and to the Albanian border. Rail lines are standard gauge, with the line to
Bar electrified. In general, the terrain is mountainous and the line has numerous bridges and
tunnels.
Three rail companies operating in Montenegro are Railway Infrastructure of Montenegro
(ŽICG), Railway Transport of Montenegro (ŽPCG), and Montecargo AD. The former rail
company, ŢeljezniceCrne Gore (ŢCG), was transformed into a public company in 1989; it was
partly privatized in June 2002 as a vertically integrated rail company. In accordance with the
Law on Railways, adopted in 2004, ŢCG was replaced by two newly established joint stock
companies: ŢICG and ŢPCG. In 2009, ŢPCG was further restructured, by spinning off the
freight division and establishing this as Montecargo, which is a fully independent joint stock
company.
Concession is offered for infrastructure management and for stations operation. The main
regulatory bodies are established. Network Statement is approved and published. In accordance
69
with the network statement of Montenegro’s rail infrastructure manager for 2015, track access
charges in Montenegro for all types of trains are EUR 3(including VAT) per train km.
The renewed Railway law was adopted in May 2013aiming at setting a new regulatory
framework for managing the railway infrastructure and transport services, defining the
competences of the Railway Directorate as the regulatory body, and improving the
competitiveness and quality of transport. A five-year business planwas prepared by the Railway
Directorate for 2013-2017.
The agreement on border railway transport between Montenegro and Albania was ratified in
March 2013.
According to the EU experts [24], the alignment with EU Directives is almost complete.
Serbia. The length of Serbian railways is about 4100 km. The main line goes from North-West
to Sowth-East: border with Hungary – Subotica – Novi Sad – Belgrad – Lapovo – Nish. From
this point the lines go to Preshevo – Border with Macedonia and to Dmitrovograd – border with
Bulgaria. For other lines connect this main rail communication with Croatian, Montenegro,
Romanian, and Macedonian borders.
In 2013, the Serbian Parliament adopted the new Law on Railway, which came into force on 30
May 2013. The law represents the framework legislation for this area and replaces the old act on
railway that was in force since 2005.According to the Government, the Law on Railway is aimed
at introducing the necessary reforms into the country’s railway system, opening competition into
this sector, improving effectiveness of the country’s railway system and integrating it into the
market of transportation services and EU railway system.
The Law on Railway had introduced the principle of separation of railway infrastructure from
operations. The separation is supposed to be implemented in the form of the separate accounting
and, to a certain extent, management of a commercial entity managing infrastructure from a
commercial entity managing transport of passengers and goods. At the same time, the Law on
Railway does not explicitly prescribe that such separation has to be formally accomplished
through the formation of separate legal entities.
Despite the formal separation between railway infrastructure and operations, the railway
infrastructure itself remains in the ownership of the Republic of Serbia and represents a so-called
good in public use, while the management of the railway infrastructure is deemed to be an
activity in the public interest. However, another important novelty is that an entity that manages
railway infrastructure no longer needs to be organized in the form of a ”public enterprise”, a
category of legal entities formed by the Serbian state, provinces or municipalities. This opens the
way for potential participation of private entities in the management of railway infrastructure.
The network statement is also introduced by the Law on Railway.
The Law on Railway also provides for the preparation and adoption of a periodical National
Program on Railway Infrastructure. The program should be prepared and proposed by the
Serbian Government and, subsequently, adopted by the Serbian Parliament for a term of five
years.
Overall, the Law on Railway appears to represent an important step in the direction of
liberalization of the Serbian railway system. However, it is yet to be seen with what degree of
efficiency and diligence the important novelties that the law contains will be implemented.
70
It also remains to be seen to what extent the relevant state-owned railway operator will adjust to
the new setting and whether such setting will bring effective liberalization to the market of
railway services. According to some initial, informal reactions by the relevant public bodies to
the Law, the entire railway network currently in existence should continue to be managed by the
relevant state-owned railway operator, while possible new routes and/or existing routes that are
potentially found in the future as being no longer viable for use by the state-owned railway
operator could be possibly offered to private operators (e.g. new routes could be potentially
constructed through a PPP/concession model). If so, the true liberalization of the Serbian railway
market may still be some years away.
According to the EU experts [25], open access to the railway market, with transparent track
access charges and capacity allocation, still needs to be achieved.
http://www.kinstellar.com/insights/detail/147/new-law-introduces-reforms-into-serbian-railway-
system
Turkey. The length of the railway network is about 11 000 km. 19% of the total length is
electrified.
EATL railway corridors 3 and 4 pass theough the Turkish railway network.
Turkish Railways, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demiryolları (TCDD), is the public enterprise
that operates the public rail system in Turkey. It operates the state railways and several large
ports; it also manufactures and repairs locomotives, wagons, and passenger coaches. As the sole
train operator in the country, Turkish Railways operates all passenger, freight and suburban
trains, including domestic and international departures. There were no separate accounting
procedures for its various operations.
Turkish Railways is the largest loss-making state public enterprise in Turkey, although the ports
are profitable and cross-subsidize rail transport.
Although the government and TCDD completed an EU-funded programme on restructuring and
strengthening the Turkish railway sector in January 2007, no progress was made on
implementing EU regulations or national legislation proposed by the project.
The acting law on liberalization of railways does not comply with the EC directives in creating
the conditions for a competitive and transparent market where the independence of essential
functions is ensured. Legislation on network access was published, but other legal provisions, on
issues such as licensing, rolling stock registry and safety, are still not in place which prevents
any effective opening-up to the private sector.
The incumbent railway operator, Turkish State Railways, has still not been unbundled as
required by law. In its role as infrastructure manager, the company owns and finances rail
operations, contrary to the EU requirements. The Directorate-General for Rail Regulation still
acts as both the regulatory authority and the safety authority and does not enjoy sufficient
independence from the Ministry of Transport.
According to the EU experts [27], further alignment efforts are required.
environment-transport-energy/reforming-turkish-railways.html
Summarizing what was said about the countries of this group it should be mentioned, that
71
a) certain progress is reached in the course of railway reforms in the mentioned above countries
which are following the main provisions of the EC railway directives;
b) in spite of all the positive changes, there are no new entrants in their railway markets which
seem to be practically closed;
c) the pace of reform seems to be slower than it was planned which can be explained, besides the
rest, by the general economic problems and decreased market demand for rail transportation.
The third group of countries contains the former republics of the USSR: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belorussia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine ,Uzbekistan. They are united by the common “Russian” railway gauge
(1520 mm) and the common heritage of technology and organization of the soviet railway
system. Some of these countries still keep this heritage; others had undertaken certain structural
reforms aimed to adjusting the railway industry to market conditions.
Armenia. Armenian railways have the845 km total length. The entire network is electrified. The
system is a part of EATL corridor 3.
There were no structural reforms in the Armenian railway industry since the collapse of the
USSR.
In 2007, the government of Armenia conducted a tender process for the modernization and
operation of Armenian Railways. Russian Railways was the only bidder and established South
Caucasus Railway (CJSC) as a wholly owned subsidiary to run the Armenian Railways. On 1
June 2008, South Caucasus Railway officially commenced its modernization and operation
program and, as part of the concession agreement, received all the assets owned by Armenian
Railways. The concession agreement was concluded for 30 years, with a right of extension for
another 20 years after the first 20 years of operation. It means that the structure and the operation
model of the Armenian railway system in the foreseeable future will be the copy of those used by
Russian Railways.
http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/library/concession-agreement-tranfer-
armenian-railway-system-south-caucasian-railway
Azerbaijan. Currently, the total length of main railroads is 2932 km including 815 km of
double-track sections. 1272 km of the total length is electrified. EATL railway corridors 3,5 and
8 pass through the Azerbaijan railway system.
Azerbaijan Railways (Azerbaijani: Azərbaycan Dəmir Yolları) is the national state-owned rail
transport operator in the Republic of Azerbaijan that continues to operate as a fully integrated
state monopoly. The core railway businesses (infrastructure, passenger, freight, etc.) are operated
by this entity. Little progress has been made in terms of competition and privatization. Freight
tariffs were liberalized while passenger tariffs remain determined by the government.
It is reported that one of the biggest financial problems was the practice of barter transactions
among state entities (i.e. state owned companies did not pay for services in cash), which was
banned in 2006. No information on the planned structural reforms is currently available.
http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/country/strategy/azerbaijan-country-strategy.pdf
Belorussia. The national railway network consists of 5,512 km, and 874 km of it are electrified.
Belorussian railways are the part of EATL corridors 1 and 2. The entire system is operated by
72
the Belaruskaya Chugunka (Belarusian Railway – BR) - the national state-owned railway
company of Belarus.
Official documents do not envisage any substantial reforms in the industry that is still “soviet-
shaped”. The Belarussian state program for development of rail transport in the period of 2011-
2015 provides only for modernization of the sector within the existing model, in which the BR is
a government corporation subordinate to the Ministry of Transport and Communications of
Belarus. Besides, some legal changes necessary to improve the international operations must be
undertaken.
At the same time, the Belarusian scientific community has developed a reform concept that is
discussed currently.
The concept provides for a vertically integrated entity. At the central level, management of all
railway enterprises should be concentrated in a holding company called Belarusian Railways,
which is to be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Belarussian Ministry of Transport and
Communications and must report directly to the Council of Ministers.
In turn, five companies will be subordinated to the holding general directorate: a freight
company, a passenger company, a locomotive company, an engineering company (repair and
maintenance of infrastructure), and an engineering company (design work). Each of these
entities should perform the full range of functions supporting its type of transport operations.
The reform concept is radically different from the Russian model and is contrary to some basic
principles laid down in the railway directives of the EC described above, in particular – there is
no market competition within the proposed system.
http://en.cfts.org.ua/articles/railway_reform_in_belarus_a_special_way
Georgia. The national railway network consists of 1,576 km, and 1534 km of it are electrified.
Georgian railways are located on the shortest route between Europe and Central Asia. EATL
corridors 3 and 8 passes through Georgian territory.
Georgian Railway LLC (Sakartvelos Rkinigza) is the national fully state-owned railway
company of Georgia. There were several attempts to involve the railway industry into the
market-oriented reforms by privatizing the company.
In the summer of 2007, the government handed over management rights for 99 years to the
London-based Parkfield Investment which had pledged to invest $1 billion into the Georgian
railway network over the next decade. But by October 2007 the deal had collapsed.
In 2008 the concession tender was announced and five entities from Kazakhstan, Sweden, USA
and Russia expressed their intention to purchase the 100% of shares and invest into the
company’s development. But the procedure was suspended by the government without any
explanations.
It is reported that the reason of the privatization problems is the strategic position of Georgian
railway within the Caucasus region. The government foresees the risk of unpredictable behavior
of the entity that could have become the owner.
No information about planned structural reforms is available.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav013108a.shtml
73
http://www.forbes.ru/ekonomika/vlast/59658-pochemu-u-tbilisi-poluchilis-reformy
Kazakhstan. The national railway network consists of 13 431 km, and 3000 km of it are
electrified. Kazakhstan railroads are at the crossroad of EATL routes: railway corridors 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 7 and 9 pass through the country.
The lines used to be under the control of three separate Soviet regional railway administrations,
but were unified under state-owned Kazakhstan Temir Zholy enterprise (KTZ), supervised by the
Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Finance.
The reforms in the industry were undertaken in three stages.
During the first stage (2001-2005) the “social sphere objects” were outsourced, operations were
separated from technical maintenance, private capital was attracted to the latter activity.
During the second stage (2004 – 2006) the entities involved in technical maintenance were
privatized. Separate directions were established for infrastructure management and operations.
Two companies were established: “Lokomotive” (providing the traction services) and
“Kaztemirtrans” (wagon fleet operator).
The first two stages envisaged the industry transformations very much alike those in Russia. But
later the direction of the reforms was changed.
The third stage which is now implemented envisages the separation of network management and
operations. At the same time, the holding will be established under the KTZ control containing
the “KTZ-infrastructure” (network management), “KTZ-cargo transportation”, “KTZ-passenger
transportation”, “KTZ-manufacturing and repair”. The cargo and passenger carriers will operate
their own locomotives and wagon fleets. The government is subsidizing the passenger services
and finances the network development. This model is very close to the EU railway industry
structure.
Besides other goals, the current development strategy is aimed at winning market position of
transcontinental transit. It is also planned to develop distribution centers for transporting goods
on the following routes: 1) From East Coast and inland provinces of China to the EU countries
(northern corridor TARN); 2) TRACECA corridor - the countries of Central Asia, the Caspian
and the Black Sea (South Caucasus, Turkey) and Iran; 3) North-South - Iran, Middle East, India.
http://sk.kz/news/view/4494/4?lang=en
http://www.ktzh-gp.kz/new-ru/index.php
Kyrgyzstan. The railway network has the total length of 424 km. The railway lines in
Kyrgyzstan are the separated dead-end sections entering the country from Kazakhstan in the
North and from Uzbekistan in the South. These are the branches of EATL corridor 3.
The state owned company Kyrgiz Temir Sholu (Kyrgyz Railways) is the only operator in the
industry. The share of railways in the national transport balance does not exceed 4%.
No information about the structural reforms is available.
Moldova. Moldavian railway network has the total length of 1232 km of which 1218 km are
1,520 mm (Russian gauge), and 14 km are 1,435 mm (standard gauge). The entire network that
is single track and not electrified. EATL corridor 3 crosses the country.
74
CaleaFerată din Moldova (Railways of Moldova - RM) is the sole railway operator responsible
for passenger and cargo transportation, as well as railway infrastructure maintenance within the
country. There were no structural reforms in the industry since Moldova became the independent
state.
At the same time, Moldavian railways are in urgent need of fundamental restructuring to provide
adequate services and compete with other means of transport which was demonstrated by
numerous projects held by international experts teams. Currently the EBRD is providing €52.5
million loan to RM. The loan will be used to co-finance the acquisition of new multi-purpose
locomotives and the rehabilitation of rail infrastructure. It will also support a broader reform of
the railway sector to improve safety and efficiency. Action plans to restructure the railway sector
and to strengthen the institutional capacities in the key areas of environment, procurement and
corporate governance will be developed with the EBRD. It is reported that the reform proposals
will be based on the principles of the EC railway directives.
http://www.ebrd.com/news/2014/ebrd-and-partners-put-moldovan-railway-on-track-for-
change.html
http://www.railway.md/?lang=ru
Russian Federation. Russian railway system is one of the world biggest; the length of the rail
network is more than 85.3 thousand km. Rail is the main transport mode for Russian Federation.
EATL corridors 1, 2, 5, 6 , 7, and 8 pass through the Russian territory.
Before 2001 all the railway activities were carried out by the Railway Ministry that combined the
functions of political leadership and the economic management in the industry.
In 2001, the government adopted the Railway Structural Reform Programme that set out
strategic priorities for the rail industry up to 2010 and beyond with the aim of improving the
efficiency and profitability of rail services in Russia, encouraging investment for modernization
and creating an effective railway holding company. The reform was developed in three phases.
- Phase I(2001-2002): Ministry of Railways was separated into two entities: the Federal Railway
Transport Agency (integrated into the Ministry of Transport) and the Open Joint-Stock Company
Russian Railways (Rossiiskie Zheleznie Dorogi - RZD). RZD had assumed all assets and
business operations of the former Ministry of Railways. The set of relevant legal acts had been
adopted;
- Phase II (2003-2005): RZD assets were unbundled along functional lines. RZD subsidiaries
were established for passenger services, container transportation, refrigerated transportation,
technical service functions. Many non-core businesses were outsourced. Cross-subsidizing of
passenger operations was phased out. By the end of Phase II RZD still kept the full monopoly in
infrastructure, traction and most transportation businesses;
- Phase III(2006-2011): introduction of competition and private capital. The main feature of this
phase is the development of the independent wagon-operating companies. First their share was
relatively small; eventually the entire fleet of cargo wagons was transferred to this segment
(including the wagons owned before by RZD). The passenger segment was outsourced. Besides
that, IPOs and/or privatization of local passenger, repair & construction, and some other
subsidiaries was undertaken.
75
As a result, Russian railway industry had acquired the structure that does not fit neither the
European (separation of infrastructure management and operations, competition “on commonly
used rails”) nor the American (competition of vertically integrated railway companies “on
parallel tracks”) industry models:
- RZD as a single state-owned monopolistic railway carrier, the owner of infrastructure and the
long haul locomotives with no wagons in operation. RZD manages and executes transportation,
issues waybills and follows the state-regulated tariff;
- more than 1400 wagon operators, mainly – private owned, with the total fleet of 1,6 million
railcars offer capacity to customers together with a set of additional services (forwarding,
paperwork, relationship with RZD, etc.). Competing on free-price market.
The reform had reached certain positive results. The private capital had entered the industry.
About 50 billion USD in comparable prices were attracted in 10 years. That had solved the
rolling stock shortage problem and gave good incentives to wagon-building. The first
competitive segment in the industry – wagon operating – is successfully developing. Many
private wagon operators are ready and eager to develop as full-scale railway carriers.
Obvious success is achieved in the long-haul passenger segment where the carrier company is
outsourced and independent operators exist.
On another hand, many problems still exist. There is still no competition in the freight
transportation sector. RZD, being the monopolist here, has no incentives to improve services and
decrease costs.
As a result, railways are losing freight in favor of road transport. The freight turnover index 2014
to 2007 is 10% for railways and 19% for trucking.
Currently the plans of further industry transformations are being prepared.
http://eng.rzd.ru/statice/public/en?STRUCTURE_ID=23
Tajikistan. Tajikistan railway network is 680 km long with no electrification. The system
connects the main urban centers of western Tajikistan with points in neighboring Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan. EATL corridor 3 and 9 enter Tajikistan.
Tajikistan railways are fully owned and operated by the government. No information about the
structural reforms is available.
Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan railway network is 4,980 km long. EATL corridor 3 passes across
Turkmenistan.
The only railway operator is the state owned company Türkmen demir ýollary (Turkmen
Railways). The company belongs to the Ministry of Railways of Turkmenistan. No information
about the structural reforms is available.
Ukraine. Ukrainian railway network is 22.3 thousand km long; 9.7 of them are electrified.
EATL corridors 1, 6, 7, 8 pass through Ukrainian territory.
The Ukrainian Railways are managed by the State Administration of Railway Transport of
Ukraine "Ukrzaliznytsia", which was established in December 1991.
76
Numerous programs of reforms had been developed in Ukraine during in the post-soviet time. In
2006 the government had adopted the concept of the State Program for the Railway reform. The
plan had three stages. In 2009 and 2011 the implementation of the Program was postponed;
currently it should be realized until 2019. The ideas of the Program are very close to those of the
reform implemented in Russia; one principal difference is that in Ukraine there are no plans to
get rid of non-profile social oriented objects like it was done in Russia. By now there are no
tangible results of the reforms in the Ukrainian railway industry.
Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan railway network is 4200 km long; more than 1600 km is electrified.
EATL corridors 3,4 and 9 pass through Uzbekistan.
The national state railway operator, Uzbekiston Temir Ullari (Uzbekistan Railways) In 2001
according to the state program of reforming of railway transport was transformed from the
unitary state enterprise into the open joint stock company with 100% of state ownership.
The Uzbekistan government with the support of the Asian Development Bank had for a long
time investigated the possibilities of the railway reform. In 1997 the railway reform committee
was established and the reform plan was published. The plan included certain standard
components: outsourcing of non-profile activities and entities, phasing out internal cross-
subsidizing, introduction of the international standards of book-keeping, staff optimization. At
the same time, the plan did not envisage any measures aimed at competition development.
In 2001 several decrees were adopted pointed at vertical separation of the industry following the
Russian reform model. According to these plans, several divisions of the company were
converted into joint-stock companies: JSC Uztemiryulkonteyner (container transportation), JSC
Yulreftrans (refrigerated goods transportation), JSC Uztemiryulyulovchi (passenger
transportation), JSC Uztemirvagon (wagon repair).
http://railway.uz/en/gazhk/istoriya/
Summarizing the review of the group of post-soviet countries, it can be noted, that they, in turn,
can be separated according to the achieved reforms progress:
- countries that have made certain progress in reforms developing the “Russian” reform model
that is not alike neither “European” nor “American” one: Russian Federation and Kazakhstan;
- countries, where reforms are widely discussed and some legal acts are adopted, although
practical steps seem to be moderate: Ukraine and Uzbekistan;
- countries, where reforms had not been even seriously planned: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Kyrgizstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Georgia, Turkmenistan.
Group four includes Asian countries that do not belong to neither of the previous three groups.
They are characterized by completely different situation in the railway industry and railway
reforms: Afghanistan, China, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan.
Afghanistan. Afghanistan railway system consists of two lines:
- 75-kilometre long stretch connecting Mazar-e-Sharif with the border of Uzbekistan which was
open in 2011. According to studies conducted by the Afghan Government, the railroad is a
success and has helped to ease a bottleneck of goods at the Hairatan dry port on the Uzbek-
Afghan border. The line serves as a major hub for almost 50 per cent of the country’s total
77
imports (before the line was opened the goods were reloaded to trucks at the border). This line
operated by Uzbekistan railways is the connection to EATL corridor 3;
The - 6 km long line between the Turkmen border and Towraghondi.
The railway activities in the country are controlled by the Afghanistan Railway Authority
(AfRA) established in 2015. Its task is to develop, design and maintain railway network in
Afghanistan.
Actually, the railway industry in Afghanistan is at the starting point of its development.
http://mopw.gov.af/en/news/afghanistan-railway-authority-afra-is-a-newly-established-
organisation-which-is-responsible-to-develop-design-and-maintain-railway-network-in-afghanis
http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1287260880
China. China has the second longest railway network in the world (121 000 km) with 24,100 km
of multiple track and 18,900 km of electrified lines. The Chinese railway system is the starting
part of the Eurasian railway corridors 2,3,4,7.
The railway sector in China has undergone several major rounds of reform and institutional
restructuring since 1986. The most radical transformation was undertaken in 2013 when China's
Ministry of Railways (which used to be one of the last world railway ministries combining
political management and operations) has been split into three. The railway planning and policy
making functions were entrusted to the Ministry of Communications (MOC), other
administrative functions rest with a newly established State Railways Administration (SRA),
while commercial activities passed to the new China Railways Corporation (CRC).
CRC is a state-owned company reporting directly to the central government. It is financed by the
Ministry of Finance and regulated by MOC and SRA.
CRC transports passengers and freight, and is responsible for operating and managing the
country's rail network. CRC drafts investment plans for railway construction, is responsible for
implementing railway projects and is accountable for safety.
In other words, the absolute monopolist position that historically belonged to the Ministry of
Railways, is practically preserved within the CRC.
Incorporation of the railway sector into MOC is part of the reform scheme aimed at building up a
comprehensive national transport system. With simultaneous handing down of power by the
central government, overall planning is expected to make railway construction more economic,
with better use of human and material resources. The government expects railway operations to
become more efficient, with stricter work standards set and policed by SRA, and improved
services.
At the same time, some experts [28] argue that the transformation from the mixed-function
Ministry of Railways to China Railway Corporation will not necessarily lead to better railway
management. It should also be mentioned, that CRC inherited some problems from the Ministry
of Railways, in particular – enormous debts that amounted to about 400 billion USD, internal
cross-subsidizing of social-sensitive passenger services, etc.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/policy/china-implements-radical-railway-reform.html
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670564.2015.1030957?journalCode=cjcc20
78
Iran. Iran railway network is about 12000 km long with the standard gauge; 148 km are
electrified. Iran is crossed by the EATL corridors 4, 5 and 8.
Republic of Iran Railways (RAI) is the state organization in charge of railway activities.
After the sanctions against Iran were dropped in 2016, the country has good opportunities to
upgrade and modernize its railway network. According to the plans, by 2025, existing lines will
be electrified and double-tracked and about 12,000 km of new lines will be built, doubling the
size of the network.
No information about the structural reforms is available.
http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/markets/how-islamic-republic-set-become-land-
br8i8d8ge/
Mongolia. Mongolian railway network is 1815 km long. EATL corridor 1 reaches Mongolia
from the North.
The main player in the sector is the Ulanbataar Railways company (UBTZ) founded in 1949 and
jointly owned by the Government of Mongolia and the Russian Railways. It is responsible for
infrastructure and operation on the main line between the Russian and Chinese borders.
In 2008 the Mongolian Railway Company (MTZ) - 100% state-owned joint-stock company -
was established in order to manage the development of national railways and to act as a recipient
of the foreign aid.
Besides that, the Boroo Tumur Eruu Gol, an iron ore company, owns 85 km of racks and 3000
wagons hauled by the UBTZ on the UBTZ network.
The State policy on railway transportation adopted in 2010 envisages the liberalization of the
freight market and modernization of the regulatory framework. It is expected that the private
sector will be involved into the industry development.
https://books.google.ru/books?id=kbjWCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=mongolian+rai
lway+reform&source=bl&ots=I4WCZZY0aV&sig=TAtCzUwHfpjh7cmEBGkAXFKvodA&hl=
ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3m67_pvbOAhVmEJoKHX2GC3kQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=mo
ngolian%20railway%20reform&f=false
https://www.legendtour.ru/rus/mongolia/informations/ubzd.shtml
Pakistan. The total length of Pakistan railway network is 7,791 km of track all across Pakistan,
stretching from Torkham to Karachi. Pakistan Railways used to have a mixture of gauges,
including 1,676 mm, or "Indian gauge" track; 1,000 mm; and 762 mm narrow gauge. Currently
only the Indian-gauge railway lines are operational. EATL corridor 4 reaches Pakistan from the
West.
Pakistan Railways is the national state-owned railway company of Pakistan. It is reported that
the company constantly faces serious economic problems; some experts even say “it is dying a
slow death”. At the same time, no serious efforts to restructure the system are undertaken.
Attempts to carry on the privatizing of the Pakistan Railways were rejected by the court.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/pakistan-railways-out-of-
intensive-care.html
80
I.3.4. EATL road routes and road transport
The EATL Road Route 1 starts on the eastern borders of the EU with Belarus as well as the
RussianFederation and continues across the Russian territory to the nation’s Pacific coast,
extending PETCs II,V and IX. Parts of the route belong to the AH network. It runs parallel to the
Trans-Siberian railway. The uneven quality of road infrastructure implies that Route 1 is unlikely
to be used widely for transcontinental trucking or passenger car trips,especially during the winter
months.
The EATL Road Route 2 is parallel to the Rail Route 2. It extends PETCs II and IXand almost
the whole route belongs to the AH network.
The EATL Road Route 3 starts on the eastern borders of the EU with Ukraine and ends on the
Chineseseaboard (Lianyungang and Shanghai ports), passing through the Ukraine, Russian
Federation, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan and eastern China. Route 3 extends PETCs II, IV, V, VIII
and IX eastward and parts of theroute belong to the AH network. Altogether, there are eight
border crossings between the EU points oforigin and final destinations in China. The road quality
varies significantly, especially in Central Asia.
The EATL Road Route 4 connects South-Eastern Europe to the Lianyungang and Shanghai
ports, passingacross Romania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and
eastern China. It providesan extension to PETCs IV, V and IX. Route 4 involves two Ro-Ro
ferry crossings (from Romania toGeorgia and Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan) and eight border
crossings. The quality of the route is uneven,changing from a broad four-lane highway to a
narrow two-lane road in some parts.
The EATL Road Route 5 connects South-East Europe to the Lianyungang and Shanghai ports,
startingon the Serbian-Bulgarian border and continuing through Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran,
Afghanistan,Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. It extends PETCs IV, V, VIII and IX. Significant parts
of the route belongto the AH network. There are eight border crossings and the road quality
varies significantly in CentralAsia.
The EATL Road Route 6 connects northern Europe to Iran, extending from the Finnish-Russian
bordersouthward to the Caspian Sea and terminating at the port of Bandar Abbas in the Persian
Gulf. Almostthe whole route belongs to the AH network and it runs in parallel to the EATL Rail
Route 5.
The EATL Road Route 7 connects the Murmansk port on the northern shore of the Kola
Peninsula(in the proximity of Finland and Norway) with the Odessa port in southern Ukraine
while passing throughnorthwest Russia and Belarus. Between St Petersburg and Odessa, Route 7
coincides with the PETC IX.
EATL Road routes are shown at Figure 2.8 and table 2.3.
83
The role of road transport varies significantly across the EATL countries. In the European Union
(EU 28) road transport accounts for about 75% of total freight turnover. At the same time, in
Central Asian region theshare of international transportation by trucks as compared with rail is
lower in all Central Asian countries(with the exception of Kyrgyz Republic). Here it accounts
on average for less than 6percent. Уточнить*
In European countries shippers prefer truck due to relatively short distances (even in
international haulage), perfectly developed road network and high logistics quality and flexibility
offered by road transport companies operating on the high competitive trucking market.
In the Asian part of the EATL region distances are much higher while the quality of the roads is
uneven and many operators are not enough qualified and reliable.
Nevertheless the importance of road transport is increasing practically everywhere, in particular
for regional and cross-border connections. The geography of the most heavily used routes
underlines the importance of the west-east routes to and from China, but also the north-south
corridors extending through Uzbekistan to and from Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran,
and the Russian Federation.
Local cross-border market is served by small individual companies with old trucks or local
market traders transporting their own merchandise.
Long-distance trade over 1,000 km is provided by comparatively modern companies operating
according to international agreements in trucking industry TIR and CMR. Significant long-haul
transportation is found in Central Asia, mostly under the TIR provision connecting the region
with Russia and Europe. Despite the distance, time-sensitive or expensive commodities have a
more reliable supply chain by roads. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are the most important
countries for transit by road serving also the needs of their neighbors.
Цифры автотранспорт?**
Prospects and opportunities for EATL road routes
Main market segments. It can be assumed that the role of road transport will grow in the most
of the EATL countries following the demand for high quality and flexible logistic services. In
particular, the following main spheres look reasonable:
- short-run cross border trade;
- long haul transportation on the lanes where railway links do not exist or can’t provide effective
services for certain commodities (perishable, expensive, etc.);
- “road section” of intermodal rail-road transport service. This section connecting the consignor
(consignee) and intermodal terminal or logistic center can be hundreds or even thousands
kilometers long.
The last option is the most important one from the point of view of logistic supply chains
transport provision and improving the competitiveness of EATL links.
In the EU region combined transport development is the general line of the transport policies and
many shippers make their choice in favor of combined transport instead of “straight trucking”.
84
The main reason is lower costs but environmental factor is also more and more considered.
Within the highly developed intermodal networks additional effects are available such as
“synchrologistic” management of flows switched from one mode to another according to the
market situation. The combined rail-road services, if developed across the Euro-Asian trade
lanes, could link together the Asian and European transport systems not just technologically but
also within the high-quality logistic service chains.
Certain examples of projects of this kind can be found on the market. Deutsche Post DHL has
developed its new service in partnership with Chinese rail operator YHF Logistics. The once-a-
week service runs through to its intermodal hub in Malaszewicze, Poland, and the company then
trucks shipments to Moscow to offer a 20-day transit time between Chengdu and Moscow
(figure 2.9). The common sense says there is no reason to ship freight through Russia to Poland
before trucking it back to Moscow, but the company representatives say this option avoids
potential problems with the rail network going into Moscow.
It turned out that the intermodal decision in fact cuts transit time and transport costs significantly
by overcoming potential delays that can be encountered when entering Moscow by rail
[http://postandparcel.info/56547/news/innovation/dhl-launches-weekly-train-link-from-china-to-
poland/].
Figure 2.9. Deutsche Post DHL combined service
Road parameters. Long and heavy road vehicles. The harmonizing of road parameters and
introduction of long and heavy vehicles (LHV), or road trains, seems to be one of the opportunities to
increase the efficiency of road transportation in the EATL area.
The average standard gross weight of the freight road vehicle all around the world is about 40
tons which provides the payload of about 20 tons. The allowed length of the road combination
rarely exceeds 20 meters. The full vehicle weight is limited by the bridges construction; the
allowed axle load depends on the carrying capacity of the road. The vehicle length depends on
road safety standards adopted in certain country.
It is very important to have the road limitations equal for all the sections of the long-haul road
route. If this condition is not fulfilled, it is necessary either to pay fees for overloading on certain
sections or even to partially unload the cargo and use another vehicle to pass through the leg with
85
more strict limitations. Unfortunately, in practice it happens not only in case of two neighbor
countries with different road standards but also within one country with uneven road quality.
Besides the harmonizing the road limitations across the main corridors, it is worth mentioning
the option of using heavy and long vehicles.
Many countries have the experience in allowing (on certain sections of the road network) the
road vehicles with weight and length that exceed the generally accepted standards. The goal is to
improve the efficiency of transportation on the most loaded trade lanes.
This trucking concept is used in remote areas of Australia, the United States, and Western
Canada. A road train consists of a relatively conventional prime mover, but instead of pulling
one trailer or semi-trailer, the road train pulls two or more of them.
Australia has the largest and heaviest road-legal vehicles in the world, with some configurations
topping out at close to 200 tons of the gross vehicle weight. The majority are between 80 and
120 tons. The train length reaches 53 meters (see figure 2.10).
Axle loads of the road train do not exceed the limit because the number of axles supporting the
LHV is higher according to its increased length. As for the high gross vehicle weight, it
sometimes makes necessary to enforce or rebuild the bridges along the routes where the LHV are
operated.
Driving and maneuvering the Australian road trains safely without unduly obstructing traffic is
only possible because of the sparse traffic and extremely flat and straight terrain through the
Australian outback. The same requirements are taken into account in all the countries where
LHV are allowed. Strict regulations also apply regarding licensing and driving experience. The
multiple trailers are unhooked, the dollies removed and then connected individually to multiple
trucks at assembly points (often located at terminals or logistic centers) when the road train gets
close to populated areas with dense traffic.
Many of the EATL countries, especially in the Central Asian region, have conditions the make
operation of the LHV possible. But this concept is developed not only in the regions with low
economic and transport density.
In Europe the so called European module system (EMS), or Eurokombi concept is widely
discussed currently. The idea is to allow longer and heavier combinations within one road
vehicle using the existing equipment. Figure 2.11 shows how three standard European
combinations can be converted into two by just recoupling the equipment. The EMS road train
has the 25,25 m maximal length and the gross weight of 60 or 44 tons for different combinations
(for volume or for weight cargoes). The average economic effect in comparison with traditional
combinations is about 20-25%.
The Eurokombi vehicles are used for many years in Sweden and Finland and are already tested
in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany with positive experience.
The supporters of the LHV idea argue that this type of vehicle:
- increases transport efficiency and economic competitiveness;
- dramatically reduces the number of vehicles for a given amount of goods;
86
- reduces environmental impact of trucking;
- reduces road congestion and road wear;
- supports intermodal transport.
There is no doubt that the EMS concept as well as the experience of LHV operation in other
regions of the world is worth serious attention of the EATL countries. The best results can be
achieved if the EATL countries work at recommendations to support a harmonized application of
the LHV.
87
Figure. 2.10. Australian road vehicle types. (Source: Anders Lundström President of the
International Forum for Road Transport Technology, IFRTT. Potential of High-Productivity
Vehicles. Workshop presentation, June 24, 2009, Brussels)
Figure. 2.11. Eurokombi concept (Source: Stefan Larsson, Director, Regulatory Projects. Weight
and dimensions of heavy commercial vehicles as established by Directive 96/53/EC and the
European Modular System (EMS). Workshop presentation ,June 24, 2009, Brussels)
89
I.3.6. Air routes and main airports
As Boeing in its “World Air Cargo Forecast 2014-2015” reported3, the Europe-Asia
4 market
comprises approximately 19.6% of the world’s air cargo traffic in tonne-kilometers and 10.0% in
tonnage.
Figure. **. Volume of Europe – Asia air cargo traffic in 1998-2013, millions tonnes
Source: World Air Cargo Forecast 2014–2015
Europe-Asia air cargo traffic has averaged 5.5% growth per year since 1998. The market
contracted 3.1% in 2012 but then grew 1.4% in 2013. The Europe-Asia annual growth chart
shows overall air traffic flows between Europe and Asia that also contain some sixth-freedom
traffic that flows into or out of other regions. The chart does not represent the actual trade flows
by direction. Therefore, comparisons should not be made between the chart and the following air
trade flow analysis.
Figure. **. Annual growth of air cargo flows on the routes Asia – Europe and Europe – Asia in
1998-2013, %
Source: World Air Cargo Forecast 2014–2015
3 World Air Cargo Forecast 2014–2015. Boeing, Seattle, 2014
4 For the purposes of forecast, the Boeing defines Europe as all 27 member countries of the European Union plus Switzerland,
Norway, Iceland, Turkey, Albania, Gibraltar, and all the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Asia is defi ned as Japan, China,
Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Macau, Cambodia, New
Zealand, and Australia.
90
During the early 1990s, Europe’s imports showed no growth as the recession that followed the
1991 Gulf War took a heavy toll on the European economy. At the same time, Asia’s demand for
Europe’s goods increased dramatically.
Since 1998, Asia-to-Europe flows have exceeded Europe-to-Asia flows. By 2008, Europe was
importing 2.3 million tonnes from and exporting 1.6 million tonnes to Asia. The gap between
Europe’s imports and exports has reversed as a result of the global economic downturn of 2008
and 2009 and of attendant aggressive financial stimulus in Asia. China led the way with a
stimulus package equivalent to 3.2% of its GDP in 2009, exceeding the 2% GDP stimulus
recommended by the International Monetary Fund. The European economy continued to struggle
from 2011 through 2013, leading European imports to contract. In 2012, the gap between
Europe’s imports and exports was approximately 2,800 tonnes, In 2013 Europe’s exports
surpassed imports by approximately 62,000 tonnes.
The overall Europe-Asia market grew 1.4% in 2013 after contracting 3.1% in 2012. The Europe-
to-Asia fl ow grew 3.0% in 2013 after declining 2.4% in 2012. In the Asia-to-Europe direction,
the fl ow declined 0.1% in 2013 and 3.7% in 2012. The contraction in Europe’s imports refl ects
the state of the European economy, which grew at a lackluster pace of 0.4% in 2013 and
contracted 0.1% in 2012.
Long-term air cargo growth has maintained a steady 5.5% average annual rate since 1998 despite
these temporary reversals. The air cargo market in the Europe-to-Asia direction has grown 6.5%
per year over the same 15-year period. In the Asia-to-Europe direction, the market averaged
4.6% growth.
The Asia-to-Europe flow consists primarily of consumer goods, while the Europe-to-Asia flow is
primarily manufactured goods.
Figure. **. Air cargo structure by main commodity groups on the routes Asia – Europe and
Europe – Asia in 2013, %
Source: World Air Cargo Forecast 2014–2015
In the Europe-to-Asia direction, the top six commodity categories account for 60% of air cargo
traffic. In descending order, the categories are general industrial machinery, food, computers,
electrical machinery and apparatus, documents and small packages, automobile parts and
accessories, and articles of apparel. In the Asia-to-Europe direction, the top four commodity
categories account for 77% of air trade. The categories are:
computers,
91
electrical machinery,
and apparatus;
documents and small packages;
articles of apparel; and
general industrial machinery.
One particularly fast-growing market segment between Europe and Asia has been documents
and small packages, sometimes referred to as “traditional express traffic.” This trade flow has
averaged 5.9% annual growth in daily shipment count in both directions since 1998, as the
movement of business samples, legal documents, and other expedited small-batch items between
Europe and Asia has increased. The total bidirectional express market averaged nearly 375,000
shipments per day in mid-2013.
Europe-Asia air cargo market forecast
Base, low, and high models were developed to forecast the Europe-Asia air cargo market. GDP
projections of 0.5% below and above the baseline were assessed, and the results of these growth
rates are reflected in the low- and high-growth scenarios.
Figure. **. Europe-Asia air cargo market forecast till 2033 by Boeing, millions tonnes
Source: World Air Cargo Forecast 2014–2015
Europe-to-Asia fl ows will average 5.2% growth as China continues to open its markets in
accordance with WTO guidelines. Several hundred million people in Asia will become
moderately affl uent and are expected eventually to demand increasing quantities of goods from
Europe.
Asia-to-Europe fl ows will grow slightly faster, with long-term growth averaging 5.3% during
the forecast period.
92
Figure. **. Asia-Europe air cargo market forecast till 2033 by Boeing, millions tonnes
Source: World Air Cargo Forecast 2014–2015
To be completed
93
I.4. EATL related sea ports and their hinterland connections
I.4.1. Sea ports role in EATL corridors
Maritime shipping is the main mode of transport in international trade and seaports remain the
crucial nodes of international transport and trade. They act not only as the hubs of global
shipping network but also as biggest portals and distribution centers of the continental logistic
systems.
The role of seaports in supply chains is evolving with the progress of supply chains themselves.
This evolution is most evident in the transport system of the European Union where sea ports are
deeply integrated in the whole logistic infrastructure.
Port organization and functions in Europe has gone through several stages. According to [14] the
following main stages can be highlighted.
Stage one. Since 1970-s on the wave of containerization enormous efforts were undertaken by
different stakeholders involved in port business together with the port authorities to optimize
internal port processes and make ports more efficient.
Stage two. Since the 1990scooperative interaction between ports has rapidly gained importance.
The main driving forces were the emergence of short sea shipping, increasing vessel sizes and
volumes and consequently the growing pressure on port capacity. During this phase different
types of ports have emerged each playing special role within the sea-land interface:
- main ports: attract large volumes in all market segments and serve ocean-going vessels;
- transhipment ports: handle large container flows, although their distribution function towards
the hinterland is rather limited. The main function of transshipment ports is to interconnect ocean
container lines and feeder routes;
- second-tier ports: these have an important cargo-bundling and distribution function. The
transshipment function can still be important, but lower volumes are generated than at main and
transshipment ports;
- third-tier ports: these are largely focused on the “immediate” hinterland (closely located
customers). Often not all market segments are served by these ports.
Stage three. Since the first decade of the century, a ‘terminalization phase’ is going on. Port
business is increasingly focused on specialized terminals through which the hinterland is served.
Ports are no longer considered to be purely transfer centers, but are becoming comprehensive
flow-through areas within logistics chains, which are functionally linked to distribution
developments in the hinterland.
Inland logistic centers and terminals are becoming important consolidation hubs for seaports.
They act not only as cargo-bundling points, reducing capacity pressure on seaport terminals, but
also as distribution centers. Seaports and inland terminals belong to the intermodal transport
system serving the European supply chains.
Stage four. While port terminalization is still unfolding, the next phase in the rapidly changing
logistics market is already starting to emerge, i.e. the formation of genuine port networks. [14].
94
In such an environment the sea ports, although competing, are more and more in constant
cooperation within supply chains and the cargo flows are flexibly distributed between them
following the market situation.
Sea ports are of great importance for EATL countries. They do not just provide overseas trade
for maritime and landlocked countries and effective transshipment between marine transport and
other modes. Trade and transport flows passing through the sea ports and the port access
infrastructure benefit from the economies of scale that makes inland transportation in hinterland
areas (which can extend for thousands of kilometers) cost-effective.
Besides that, the logistic infrastructure of ports themselves as well as that of the dry ports, that
can be located hundreds of kilometers in the hinterland, provides enormous added value in
supply chains.
According to the contemporary logistic approach, sea ports should not be analyzed or developed
as isolated units. Development plans should consider also the port hinterland connections and the
infrastructural objects located in the hinterland and directly linked to sea ports (logistic centers,
dry ports, inland intermodal terminals). Such an approach should be used while developing
national transport policies and infrastructure development plans, as well as in the regional
documents adopted by EATL countries.
Developing economies’ share of world container port throughput in 2014 increased marginally
toapproximately 71.9 per cent. This continues the trend of a gradual rise in developing
countries’share of world container throughput [Maritime review 2014].
With the strong economic growth of Asia, namely of China, cargo throughput in Asian seaports
has steadily grown in the past 10 years. The major European ports Rotterdam, Antwerp, and
Hamburg, have only grown by 167 per cent, 159 per cent and 144 per cent respectively in the
same period of time. In 2014, the ports of Ningbo-Zhousan, Shanghai, Singapore, Tianjin have
become the biggest seaports by tonnage in TEU, and world’s biggest container ports.
The EATL route network is connected to many of these major seaports. The 20 important
seaports are located in the Baltic and North Sea, in the Mediterranean, on the Pacific coast, and
on the Gulf in the Arabian Sea (See Figure 2.12* and Table 2.3 ). Нужно определиться с
важнейшими портами
The biggest seaport on the Baltic Sea is Riga (Latvia) with an annual cargo throughput of
34,040,000 tonnes (2013). In the Mediterranean the biggest port by throughput is Piraeus
(Greece) with 40,192,000 tonnes (2013), while on the Рacific coast Shanghai is the biggest port
with an annual throughput of 543,000,000 tonnes (2013).
Other important ports that are not direct end points of EATL routes but are in close proximity are
the major European ports in the North Sea, such as the port of Rotterdam (Netherlands)- (annual
throughput of 406,549,000 tonnes (2013), as well as the ports of Bandar Abbas (Iran) and
Karachi (Pakistan)-41,350,000 tonnes (2013-2014) in the Arabian Sea
In addition to maritime seaports the EATL network encompasses also major ports in the Caspian
Sea, where the ports of Baku (Azerbaijan) and Aktau (Kazakhstan) had an annual cargo
throughput of 25,000,000 tonnes and 12,000,000 tonnes respectively (2011), and in the Black
Sea, with the port of Ilyichevsk (Ukraine) and the port of Varna (Bulgaria) with annual cargo
throughput of 15,530,000 tonnes and 12,950,000 tonnes respectively.
95
The seaports on the Pacific side, Shanghai (China), Lianyungan (China), Vladivostok (Russia)
and Nakhodka/Vostochny (Russia) play an important role for the EATL as they connect Eurasia
with the Republic of Korea, Japan and Taiwan Province of China. Car manufacturers such as
Daewoo Motors, Kia Motors and Hyundai have been using these ports as entry gates to the
Russian and Chinese markets, and use the Trans-Siberian Railways for container freight trains of
automotive parts and cars from and to their production sites inside Russia and Uzbekistan.
The Baltic Sea ports of Ventsplis, Riga and Klapeida actively position themselves as regional
hubs in the East-West transport link between Europe and Russia24 and the North—South
transport link to the Black Sea and the Caucasus. Many container freight services connecting
these ports are a witness of this positioning. The Iranian ports of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar are
also looking towards building a landbridge to Afghanistan, Central Asia and China through
Central Asia with the Iran Railways currently building a railway connection from Sangan, in the
South East of the country close to both ports, to Herat in Afghanistan.
Table 2.3.EATL system seaports and their relation to EATL routes
Port EATL rail routes connected EATL road routes connected
Aktau (Kazakhstan) 5d,6d 3d,4,6c,6g
Alexandroupolis (Greece) 5c
Amirabad (Iran) 5a
Anzali (Iran) 5 6
Arkhangelsk (Russia) 1c
Astrakhan (Russia) 5,5a,5b,5c 6,6a,6c
Atyrau (Kazakhstan) 6g
Baku (Azerbaijan) 3, 3a 4,4f,6a
Bandar Abbas (Iran) 5 6,6f
Bandar Imam (Iran) 5e 6d
Batumi (Georgia) 3, 3g, 3h, 3i, 3h,8d 3e,3f,4,4b,4c, 4d,4e,4i,4j,4n
Burgas (Bulgaria) 3j 3e
Bushehr (Iran) 5f 6e
Chabahar (Iran) 5g 6g
Constanta (Romania) 3,4,4h,4i 4,5i
Derince (Turkey) 4,4g,4h 5,5j
Galati (Romania) 3o
96
Haydarpasha (Turkey) 4 5,5i
Igoumenitsa (Greece) 5c
Ilyichevsk (Ukraine) 3g,4b,4g 4c,4i,4m,5d,5j,7
Iskenderun (Turkey) 3f,4a
Izmir (Turkey) 4d,4e
Kaliningrad (Russia)* 8b 3c
Kavala (Greece) 5c
Kavkaz (Russia) 8c 3e,3f
Lianyungang (China) 2,3,4,7 2,3,4,5
Makhachkala (Russia) 3d
Mersin (Turkey) 3f,4a
Murmansk (Russia) 5h 7
Nakhodka (Russia) 1
Novorossiysk (Russia) 8d 3e,3f
Odessa (Ukraine) 3g 4b,4c,4i,4m,5d,7
Olya (Russia) 5,5a,5d 6,6a,6c
Poti (Georgia) 3, 3g, 3h, 3i, 3h,8d 3e,3f,4,4b, 4c,4d,4e,4i,4n
Samsun (Turkey) 4b,4i 3e,4e,4m,4n,5d
Shanghai (China) 2,3,7 2,3,4,5
St-Petersburg (Russia) 1a, 2a,5,5h 1,7
Thessaloniki (Greece) 5c
Trabzon (Turkey) 4e,4m,4n
Turkmenbashi (Turkmenia) 3a 4f,6g
Varna (Bulgaria) 3h, 3i,8d 4d
Vladivostok (Russia) 1,6 1
Vostochny (Russia) 1,6 1
98
I.4.3. Most important sea ports identification
Identifying the major sea ports in the EATL transport system needs some criteria to choose
among 43* sea ports related to EATL routes. Authors of the report developed the list of
characteristics used the following criteria for that, considering that the major sea ports should
have the following features:
- belong to EATL railway corridors (the more corridors the port is related to the higher is the
importance of the port);
- have a relatively high throughput;
- demonstrate good progress in throughput during 5 recent years and/or
- provide direct ocean access on the foreland side.
102
I.4.4. Logistic centers and dry ports and in the EATL system
Smooth functioning of the supply chain requires modern infrastructure. Nowadays logistic
centers are considered to be the mandatory components of logistic infrastructure carrying on
numerous functions in the supply chains.
Europlatforms [20] give the following description of logistic center (LC) concept: “It is a
designated area within which all operations connected with transport, logistics and distribution of
goods are performed by different operators as part of deliveries, both on the national and
international level. These operators may be owners of built and situated in the center: buildings,
offices, warehouses, storage yards, parking places, facilities, etc. or use them pursuant to leasing
or rental agreements. In order to respect the principles of free competition, the center must
ensure access to all companies involved in activities described above. The logistics center must
be equipped with devices and facilities available to the general public allowing to provide
services. Whenever possible it should also ensure public services for the staff and users’
equipment. In order to support the development of inter-modal technologies in cargo relocation,
the logistics center should be supported by many branches of transport. It is also necessary that
the center be run by an entity appointed especially for this purpose from the public or private
sphere”.
Logistics centers have the most extensive structure of all components comprising the logistics
network. They are composed of many facilities collaborating with each other and co-operating
logistics operators. LC enables to conduct operations on goods in connection with warehousing
and relocating them between the shipper and the consignee, providing intermodal transportation
and value-added services against the transported commodities.
Intermodal terminal is the specific component of the logistic center. It serves not only as a pivot
where cargo (usually in containers, contrailers or swap-bodies) is transshipped between the
modes. Logistic centers’ intermodal terminals are the origin/destination points for regularly
operating block-trains linking the LC with other LCs located in sea ports, surface transport
nodes, logistic hubs, industrial areas, etc. This is the most attractive feature for logistic
operators locating their business on the LC.
The LC idea is currently used in most of the developed economies. Various terms, besides the
Logistic Center, are used to identify the objects of the type in different countries: Terminal
village, Freight village, Logistic Village, Dry Port – in English-speaking countries,
GuterVerkehr Centrum (Center for Freight Transport) – in Germany and Austria, Interporto
(transshipment point) – in Italy, Rail Service center – in Netherlands, Platform de Fret, Platform
Logistigue (Freight platform, logistic platform) – in France.
While in Europe and in North America logistic centers have long ago become the compulsory
component of logistic infrastructure, Asia is just in the early stage of LC development. To speed
it up, in 2013 the Intergovernmental Agreement on Dry Ports was concluded under the auspices
of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).
The Agreement is aimed to promote the cooperation of the development of dry ports in the Asia-
Pacific region. As of April 2016, the Agreement has been signed by 17 UNESCAP states.
The Agreement identifies a number of existing and potential dry port locations that are to be the
basis of a coordinated effort to create nodes along an international integrated intermodal
transport and logistics system.
103
According to the Agreement , a dry port of international importance (“dry port”) refers to an
“Inland location as a logistics center connected to one or more modes of transport for the
handling, storage and regulatory inspection of goods moving in international trade and the
execution of applicable customs control and formalities”.
The Agreement (in its Annex I) identifies the dry ports subject to the agreement. The locations of
the dry ports listed in the Agreement were chosen considering the following factors:
a) inland capitals, provincial/state capitals;
b) existing and potential industrial and agriculture centres;
c) major intersection of railways (Trans-Asian Railways),highways (Asian Highways) and inland
waterways;
d) along trunk railways lines (Trans-Asian Railways),major highways (Asian Highways), inland
waterways and airports/
The basic functions of dry ports include the handling, storage and regulatory inspection of goods
moving in international trade and the execution of applicable customs control and formalities.
Additional functions of dry ports may include, but are not limited to receipt and dispatch,
consolidation and distribution, warehousing and transshipment.
The dry ports listed in the Agreement should be brought into conformity with the guiding
principles for the development and operation of dry ports as described by Annex II of the
Agreement. The guiding principles consider dry port functions, institutional, administrative and
regulatory framework, design, layout and capacity of dry ports, their equipment and facilities.
According to the Agreement, the Parties adopt the list of dry ports as the basis for the
coordinated development of important nodes in an international integrated intermodal transport
and logistics system. They also intend to develop these dry ports within the framework of their
national programmes and in accordance with national laws and regulations.
The implementation of the Agreement is considered by a Working Group on Dry Ports created
according to the Agreement.
It appears that logistic centers in the EATL system should be the relay between transport
corridors and regions. They should become international trading centers, interfaces between
modes and between agencies participating in transportation and logistic process.
Being created in the hubs of EATL network, logistic centers could become the logistic “pivots”
carrying on the following functions:
- acting as the points of local integration/distribution of goods in particular areas;
- serve as effective warehousing zones directly connected to transport services;
- being points of smooth transshipment between rail and road (as well as between different
railway links) within intermodal transport services;
- act as platforms for industrial zones linked transport-logistic network;
- provide the possibility for value-added services execution within the supply chains;
104
- being located nearby the borders – provide infrastructure for effective border check procedures;
- being located on the connection points of different rail gauges – give opportunity to combine
boogies exchange or freight transshipment with intermediate warehousing and/or value-added
services.
In other words, Logistic Centers developed within the EATL network could become the modern
market-oriented nodes of supply chains improving the competitiveness of the entire EATL
system.
To be effectively inter-connected dry ports and inland terminal should provide standard – by
scope and quality – logistic services. Currently these parameters differ much across the EATL
terminal objects.
It seems reasonable to analyze the possibility of developing “Terminal services standard
minimum” – first, in a form of recommendations or “Best practices manual”. Primarily this task
should be done concerning container business.
Figure *illustrates the location of dry ports (envisaged by the 2013 Intergovernmental
Agreement on Dry Ports) related to EATL railway routes.
105
Figure **. Dry ports listed in the 2013 Intergovernmental Agreement on Dry Ports related to EATL corridors
106
Comparative analysis of the duration and expenses of different modes of transport between
Europe and Asia on selected Euro-Asian routes
General
On May 1998 in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, during the International Euro-Asian
Conference on Transport, European and Asian countries declared the desire to further connect
and integrate their transport systems. One of the central ideas of such integration was to benefit
from development of overland routes that are obviously shorter than the maritime lines.
At the same time, pure distance itself can not be the practical criteria of the route choice. Total
transportation time (including the delays on the way), full delivery costs, service frequency and
reliability, cargo “time sensitivity”, value added services en route and other factors are
considered while making such a decision.
For this reason, comparative analysis of maritime and overland routes connecting Europe and
Asia is undertaken constantly in numerous studies held by different agencies and researchers.
The aims of such an analysis can differ. In particular, they are undertaken in order to:
- demonstrate the principle advantages of particular overland corridors;
- choose the most competitive overland route among several options;
- evaluate the volumes of cargo that can be attracted to the overland routes, and so on.
This section contains several examples of the sea and overland routes comparative analysis:
- the upgraded fragment of the analysis undertaken during Phase II of the EATL research;
- the study undertaken by the Russian Centre for Economic and Financial Research at the New
Economic School (CEFIR);
- the research provided by PLASKE – freight forwarding company involved into the Euro-Asian
intermodal container transportation;
- theEurasian Development Bank study.
Phase II research
The Phase II study contained the section dedicated to comparative analysis of the maritime and
inland Eurasian routes based on the time-cost methodology. The analysis included the total time
and costs within the entire supply chain, which include road transport costs of moving containers
from/to the warehouse/port, terminal handling charges, and documentation and other
administrative costs.The structure of time and cost for compared routes is illustrated by figure *.
107
Figure *. Structure of time/costs considered by the EATL Phase II study
Nine scenarios were analyzed. In all scenarios, rail transport performed better than maritimein
terms of travel time. The Study showed that Euro–Asian rail transport, and its
intermodalcombination with maritime and road transport, is a feasible and competitive
transportoption provided that efficient rail corridor management is established, governments are
willingto cooperate and rail companies serve customers’needs in an effective manner along the
whole corridor.
In this section the selected results of this analysis are presented (6 scenarios out of 9, see table *).
These results often can not give the definite advantage to certain option because time and costs
comparison results can be contradictive (see the “Total Result” column of table * where ++
means both the time and cost advantage of overland route and 0 means that the comparison result
is undefined).
Table *. Selected results of the comparative analysis of the maritime and inland Eurasian routes
(EATL Phase II study)
Trade lane Maritime Overland Result
Time Cost Time Cost Time Cost Total
Khabarovsk
- Potsdam
1093 6533 341 6967 + - 0
Hangzhou -
Kaluga
637 6786 277 4715 + + ++
Tashkent -
Varna
529 7550 165 5946 + + ++
Almaty -
Istanbul
672 4970 250 5881 + - 0
Ussuriysk
(Russian
Federation)
to Kyiv
(Ukraine)
463 6290 289 5875 + + ++
Shanghai - 569 6300 446 8937 + - 0
108
Warsaw
This comparison was continued and “upgraded” on the base of value of time data used in the
World Container Model (see section **). Since the value of time can dramatically differ for
different commodities, three options were used for calculations – low, average and high value
(see table *).
Table *. Value of time options
Commodities Value of time, Euro/day/ton
Low Solidmineralfuels 1
Average Foodstuffsandanimalfodder 5
High Machinery, transport equipment,
manufactured and miscellaneous articles 8
For calculations it was assumed that the average payload of the FEU is 15 tons. The values given
in table * were converted into US dollars. After that the “Total costs difference” including all the
charges en route plus the “time costs” were calculated for all the routes compared. The results
are shown in table *.The negative quantity of the total cost difference means that the overland
transportation option is preferable.
Table *.Comparison of routes taking into account the value of time
Trade lane Total cost difference
Low Average High
Khabarovsk - Potsdam -92,40 -2221,50 -3814,80
Hangzhou - Kaluga -2323,00 -3342,25 -4105,00
Tashkent - Varna -1858,80 -2889,38 -3660,60
Almaty - Istanbul 615,60 -579,19 -1473,30
Ussuriysk (Russian
Federation) to Kyiv
(Ukraine) -536,80 -1029,44 -1398,10
Shanghai - Warsaw 2550,90 2202,66 1942,05
The results confirm the general conclusion made during Phase II of the project that at certain
conditions many commodities can be effectively transported using the rail EATL routes. Among
109
the analyzed trade lanes the sea option is more effective only the Shanghai – Warsaw direction
(for all types of commodities considered) for obvious reason – shortest land leg of the route.
The CEFIR study
The study [16 ] described in this section was undertaken by the Russian Centre for Economic
and Financial Research at the New Economic School (CEFIR) in order to evaluate the transit
potential of the Russian Federation in respect to goods flows between Asia and the European
Union. The study compiles the information available from the RETRACK project (FP6 EC
program) and work done on the development of the World Container Model (WCM). The main
goal of the study is to evaluate the Euro-Asian cargo volumes that can be transported via the
following routes:
– TransSib (TSR) (red line on figure *).This rail link begins in North Eastern China, going
North directly into Russia. The Russian TSR ends in Moscow, from which the line continues
further via Belarus to central Poland;
– TransSib – Kazakh, light blue line. This rail link starts in Western China, going via
Kazakhstan in the North-Western direction. It joins the TSR line in Russia and follows the
Trans-Siberian corridor further;
– Central corridor, brown line. This rail link starts in Western China, going via Kazakhstan in
the Western direction and enters Russia in the South, then continues via Ukraine and finally
ending in Slovakia;
– Maritime (Suez) route, dark blue line. The maritime link starts in the Eastern coastal China,
uses Suez Canal to get into the Mediterranean Sea. For the West Europe, the link can be
extended further through the Strait of Gibraltar.
– Arctic route, green line The potential of this route was a special point of the study; it is not
described in this report.
TNO report | TNO 2013 R12004 | 13 December 2013 6 / 27
Figure 1: Main rail and maritime bridges connecting Europe and China
The routes studied in this report will comprise:
– TransSib (TSR), red line. This rail link begins in North Eastern China, going
North directly into Russia. The Russian TSR ends in Moscow, from which the
line continues further via Belarus to central Poland.
– TransSib – Kazakh, light blue line. This rail link starts in Western China, going
via Kazakhstan in the North-Western direction. It joins the TSR line in Russia
and follows the Trans-Siberian corridor further.
– Central corridor, brown line. This rail link starts in Western China, going via
Kazakhstan in the Western direction and enters Russia in the South, then
continues via Ukraine and finally ending in Slovakia.
– Maritime (Suez) route, dark blue line. The maritime link starts in the Eastern
coastal China, uses Suez Canal to get into the Mediterranean Sea. For the
West Europe, the link can be extended further through the Strait of Gibraltar.
– Arctic route, green line. The maritime link starts in Eastern coastal China,
crosses the Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, goes along the Northern coast of
Russia. The link continues via Barents and Norwegian Seas finishing in the
North Sea.
110
Figure*.Transport routes considered by the CEFIR study
The potential assessment is made using the concept of the total logistics costs. The costs of
transport between origin and destination points consist of two main components.
The first component contains the costs attributed to physical transport. These include the costs of
moving loading units (containers, bulk units) between loading and discharge points and costs of
transshipment (deep sea terminal costs, rail terminal costs, etc.). These are the so-called “out of
pocket” costs that the cargo owners have to pay to move their goods.
The second cost component of the total logistics costs is related to the time that the goods spend
in transit. The goods in transit freeze capital, causing the so- called pipeline stock keeping costs.
However, the cost for capital frozen in transported goods is often not the greatest time-related
cost component. While the goods are in transit, the market situation can change. Demand
variability leads to capital expenditure on safety stocks that cover the uncertainty in demand
during the period of transportation. Transit time also reduces company ability to react to other
market events, such as introduction of new products by the competitors. In the case of new
product introduction, the goods arriving later lose a substantial part of their value and are sold at
a discount. The time-related component of the total logistics costs can be summed up in the
Value of Time (VOT) value, which is commodity-specific.
The relevant estimations of time value for different goods are used in the World Container
Model (WCM)5. The model has been calibrated to reflect worldwide goods flows: the VOT
values used in the model have thus been proven to be realistic estimates.
For the assessment of the maritime and rail land bridge potential the total logistics costs for three
rail corridors and the deep sea route indicated above were computed . The assessment of the
corridors is based on their economic attractiveness: the corridors with smaller total logistics costs
will be more attractive for the cargo owners.
For the objectives of the calculation, China had been split into 4 distinct regions, each having
different growth prospects, economy properties, available infrastructure and various access costs
to the Eastern deep sea ports: Western China (CN1), Central China (CN2), Coastal China North
(CN3), Coastal China Center / South (CN4).
The model performs computations for the 4 Chinese regions, linking the regions to each of the
27 EU countries. All trade and transport volumes go to / come from the “centers” of those 4
regions.
Table *.Regionalization of trade between EU and China within Chinese regions
ChineseRegion Shareofimport / export
WesternChina 0,05
CentralChina 0,05
CoastalChinaNorth (CN3) 0,45
5A strategic network choice model for global container flows: specification, estimation and application,
LórántTavasszy, MichielMinderhoud, Jean-François Perrin, Theo Notteboom, Journal of Transport
Geography, Volume 19, Issue 6, November 2011, Pages 1163–1172
111
Coastal China Center / South (CN4) 0,45
The model estimated the average distances to and from each of the 27 EU countries to the
European end points of the corridor. The same was also done for China: the distances were
estimated between the 4 considered Chinese regions and the starting points of the corridors.
These distances were used to determine the total logistics costs of transport to and from the rail
corridors
The scenario 2020 used estimations over the expected at the time trade growth between China
and the EU-27, expected improvements in rail infrastructure and spatial changes in the Chinese
economy for the decade.
The Value of time in the model was expressed in euro/day/tonneper NSTR (Nomenclature
uniforme des marchandises pour les Statistiques de Transport, Revisée)commodity
typecomputed for the World Container Model (WCM). Commodity groups and corresponding
Value of Time considered are presented in table *.
Table *.NSTR/1 commodity classification and value of time for commodity groups
NSTR/1 code Commoditytype Value of time
(Euro/day/ton)
NSTR0 Agricultural products and live animals 3,8
NSTR1 Foodstuffsandanimalfodder 5,0
NSTR2 Solidmineralfuels 1,0
NSTR3 Petroleumproducts 3,4
NSTR4 Oresandmetalwaste 2,6
NSTR5 Metalproducts 7,0
NSTR6 Crude and manufactured minerals, building
materials
1,0
NSTR7 Fertilizers 1,0
NSTR8 Chemicals 7,0
NSTR9 Machinery, transport equipment,
manufactured and miscellaneous articles
8,0
Main model parameters are presented in table *.
112
For the basic model (year 2010) transit time wascalculated after the interviews with the
stakeholders and expert opinion (RETRACK project6). Transshipment and shadow costs
(reflecting a “resistance” for the goods flow, in particular, the non-physical barriers) were based
on expert opinions and model calibration runs.
As for 2020, the assumption was made that the transit time between Europe and China across the
rail corridors will improve. In addition, the ton-kilometer tariff and shadow costs are also
expected to be reduced. These assumptions were all based on the proposed investments into
therailwaysystems improvement between 2010 and 2020. The shadow costs for the rail corridors
were estimated to be lower than in 2010, reflecting expected improvements in infrastructure and
service. The maritime shadow costs have been kept constant.
Table *. Main model parameters for 2010 and 2020
Corridor Distance
, km
TransitTime,
days
Transport Cost,
Euro/tonne/ km
Transshipment and
shadow costs, Euro/tonne
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
TSR 8,000 20 14 0,07 0,035 400 300
TransSib –
TransKazak
h
5,200 16 12 0,07 0,035 500 400
Central 5,500 18 12 0,07 0,035 800 400
Maritime(S
uez) 16,000 30 30 0,0025 0,0025 100 100
Table * shows the model cargo distribution between the corridors.
Table *Estimated 2010 and 2020 rail corridor and maritime volumes between China and EU 27
Volumes distribution, China –
EU27, % to total
2010 2020
TSR corridor 1,4 8,1
TransSib - Kazakhcorridor 0,2 6,0
Centralcorridor 0,3 4,4
Maritime (Suez) corridor 98,1 81,5
Total 100 100
6Retrack – Reorganization of Transport Networks by advanced Rail freight concepts: http://www.retrack.eu/
113
One of the interesting aspects of the modelling was the study of competition between the
overland corridors influence. In the basic 2010 scenario the low volumes imply that inter-
corridor competition does not have an impact, as the corridors “do not see” each other. The
growth, if any, is a result of attracting cargo from marine route. Contrary to the 2010 estimated
situation, in 2020 competition would have an effect on rail volumes. The authors of the study
conclude that weaker corridors would be more strongly affected by the intra-rail competition
than the more attractive ones.
According to the modelling results, in 2010 the TSR and Kazakhstan corridors were the most
attractive options, with the Kazakhstan corridor being slightly more attractive than TSR. Central
corridor is not a viable option according to the modelling results.
In 2020, the TSR will become the most attractive rail land bridge, while the Kazakhstan land
bridge will slightly lose its attractiveness. The most important expectation for 2020 is that the
Central corridor will also become a good transport option, not being far behind the leading
corridors.
The increased competitiveness of the TSR corridor in 2020 can be explained by the fact that this
corridor has the fewest number of border crossings and transshipments (and the shadow costs are
the lowest). Even assuming favorable developments in respect to infrastructure and alleviation of
institutional barriers, border crossings and transshipment will still add extra transit time and
costs. The extra times and border crossings are a strong structural resistance factor.
Generally, the modelling demonstrated that the total share of overland Eurasian transport can be
increased from 1,9 to 18,5%. But to obtain this result, dramatic changes should occur: transit
time must decrease by 25-30%, transport costs should be at the 50% level to the 2010 basis,
transshipment and shadow costs should decrease significantly as well. It is clear now that this
optimistic scenario is not realized in practice.
PLASKE company study
The research described below was provided by the PLASKE company – freight forwarder with
experience in Euro-Asian intermodal container transportation [13].
The target of the research was the comparison of time and cost for cargo transportation via three
rail EATL routes (No. 1, no. 2 and no. 7) and the sea route from China. The origin points are
located nearby the sea (Shanghai), and in the remote from the sea region (Beijing). Destination
point is Warsaw (Poland).
The 40’box containing motors for household sewing machines (cargo that requires no additional
control measures), net weight 20 tons, was chosen as the object of transportation.
The specified delivery time is the smallest possible on the market.
Seven routes were chosen for the analysis: two of them connecting Shanghai and Warsaw and
four between Beijing and Warsaw:
1a) Shanghai-Shanghai sea port – containership by sea - port of Gdańsk – railway container
train - Warsaw;
1b) Shanghai- Railway route EATL No. 7 (China-[BCP Alashankou/Dostyk]-Kazakhstan-[BCP
Saryagash/Keles]-Uzbekistan-[BCP Beyneu (Karakalpakia) /Oasis]- Kazakhstan -[BCP
114
Aksaraiskaya/Ganyushkino]-Russia-[BCP Gukovo/Krasnaya Mogila] - Ukraine-[BCP
Mostiska/Pshemyshl]-Poland), Warsaw;
2a) Beijing-railway container train -port Shanghai- containership by sea-port of Gdańsk- railway
container train - Warsaw;
2b) Beijing - railway route EATL No. 7 (China-[BCP Alashankou/Dostyk]-Kazakhstan-
[BCPSaryagash/Keles]-Uzbekistan-[BCP Beyneu (Karakalpakia) / Oasis]- Kazakhstan-[BCP
Aksaraiskaya / Ganyushkino]-Russia-[BCP Gukovo/Krasnaya Mogila] – Ukraine - [BCP
Mostiska/Pshemyshl] -Poland), Warsaw;
3a) Beijing-railway container train -port Shanghai-containership by sea -port of Gdańsk-railway
container train -Warsaw (coincides with route 2 (a));
3b) Beijing-railwaycontainer train route No. 1 EATL (China-[ BCPMančžouli/Zabaykalsk]-
Russia (Trans-Siberian railway)-[BCP Red/Osinovka]-Belarus-[BCP Brest/Terespol]-Poland),
Warsaw;
4a) Beijing-railwaycontainer train -port Shanghai-containership by sea -port of Gdańsk-railway
container train -Warsaw (coincides with route 2 (a));
4b) Beijing-railway route EATL No. 2 (China-[BCPAlashankou/Dostyk]-Kazakhstan-[BCP
Petropavlovsk (Mamlyutka)/Kokchetav]-Russia-[Red/Osinovka]-Belarus-[BCP Brest/Terespol]-
Poland), Warsaw.
The results of the routes’ comparison are presented below.
Case 1.Comparison of routes 1a and 1b (tables ***, figures**) shows that rail traffic between
China and Poland through Central Asia will be competitive for the carriage of containers in
container trains only (average speed of 1000 km/day). The difference in delivery times in favor
of railways in this case is big enough: 28 days.
Under normal conditions (standard train) this time advantage will likely be lost due to downtime
of a train on the border crossings.
At the same time, cost difference here is the largest of all of the scenarios in the study: overland
route is more expensive than sea by 8 $ 444.5. United States. The railroad crosses the territory
of 7 countries (Kazakhstan, twice), and the total length of the path is 11 653 km-more than from
China to Germany.
115
Table *. Route 1a components
Route section Length, km Price, USD
(Commercial
offer)
Price, USD
(Internet data)
Time, hours
Port Handling costs
Shanghai sea port
- 100 100 -
Other costs Shanghai sea
port
- 150 150 -
Shanghai port-port of
Gdansk (by sea)
20486 2189 2350 981
Port Handling costs Gdansk
sea port
- 165,5 165,5 -
Other costs Gdansk sea
port
- 250 250 -
Port Gdansk- Warsaw (by
rail)
373 445 445 14,5
Warsaw rail terminal
handling costs
- 35 35 -
Warsaw rail terminal other
costs
- 45 45 -
TOTAL 20859 3379,5 3540,5 995,5
Table *. Route 1b components
Route section Length, km Price, USD
(Railway tariffs)
Time, hours
Shanghairailterminalh
andlingcosts
- 25 -
Shanghai rail terminal
other costs
- 30 -
China (by rail)
Shanghai Jun-gunlu-
Alashankou
4529 6247 114
116
Kazakhstan (by rail)
Dostyk-Sary-Agach
1831 910 50
Uzbekistan (by rail)
Keles-Karakalpakia
1686 1399 46,5
Kazakhstan (by rail)
Oasis-Dina
Nurpeisova
796 982 25
Russian Federation (by
rail) Kigaš-Gukovo 862 988 27
Ukraine (by rail)
Krasnaya Mogila-
Mostiska II
1576 718 43
Poland (by rail)
Pshemyshl-Warsaw 380 445 9
Warsaw rail terminal
handling costs
- 35 -
Warsaw rail terminal
other costs
- 45 -
Total 11660 11824 314,5
117
Figure **. Time – distance diagram for routes 1a and 1b
Figure **.Cost – distance diagram for routes 1a and 1b
Shanghai
Warsaw
Gdansk
Warsaw
DISTANCE, KM
Sea route (1a)
Rail route (1b)
(1b))
TIME, HOURS
Warsaw
Warsaw
Gdansk
Shanghai
COSTS, USD
DISTANCE, KM
Sea route (1a)
Rail route (1b)
(1b))
119
Table *. Route 2a components
Route section Length,
km
Price, USD
(Commercia
l offer)
Price, USD
(Internet data)
Time, hours
Beijing – Shanghai sea port (by
rail)
1095 1548 1548 26
Other costs Shanghai sea port - 100 100 -
Shanghai port-port of Gdansk
(by sea)
- 150 150 -
Port Handling costs Gdansk sea
port
20486 2189 2350 981
Other costs Gdansk sea port - 165,5 165,5 -
Port Gdansk- Warsaw (by rail) - 250 250 -
Warsaw rail terminal handling
costs
373 445 445 14,5
Warsaw rail terminal other costs - 35 35 -
Other costs Shanghai sea port - 45 45 -
TOTAL 21954 4927 5088 1021,5
Table *. Route 2b components
Route section Length, km Price, USD
(Railway tariffs)
Time, hours
Beijing rail terminal
handling costs
- 25 -
Beijing rail terminal
other costs
- 30 -
China (by rail)
Beijing -Alashankou
3354 4724 86,5
Kazakhstan (by rail)
Dostyk-Sary-Agach
1831 910 50
120
Uzbekistan (by rail)
Keles-Karakalpakia
1686 1399 46,5
Kazakhstan (by rail)
Oasis-Dina
Nurpeisova
796 982 25
Russian Federation
(by rail) Kigaš-
Gukovo
862 1113 27
Ukraine (by rail)
Krasnaya Mogila-
Mostiska II
1576 718 43
Poland (by rail)
Pshemyshl-Warsaw
380 445 9
Warsaw rail terminal
handling costs
- 35 -
Warsaw rail terminal
other costs
- 45 -
Total 10485 10426 287
Figure **. Time – distance diagram for routes 2a and 2b
TIME, HOURS
Beijing
Warsaw
Gdansk
Warsaw
DISTANCE, KM
Sea route (2a)
Rail route (2b)
(1b))
121
Figure **.Cost – distance diagram for routes 2a and 2b
Case 2. Comparison of routes 2a and 2b shows the same tendency as in case 1.
Case 3.Route 3a is identical to route 2a. Data for route 3b components is shown in table *.
Warsaw
Warsaw
Gdansk
Beijing
COSTS, USD
DISTANCE, KM
Sea route (2a)
Rail route (2b)
(1b))
122
Table *. Route 3b components
Route section Length, km Price, USD
(Railway tariffs)
Time, hours
Beijing rail terminal handling costs - 25 -
Beijing rail terminal other costs - 30 -
China (by rail) Beijing-Manzhouli 2335 3234 62
Russian Federation (by rail) Zabaikalsk-
Krasnoe
7069 1806 174
Belarus (by rail) Osinovka-Brest 609 487 20
Poland (by rail) Terespol-Warsaw 210 330 5
Warsaw rail terminal handling costs - 35 -
Warsaw rail terminal other costs - 45 -
TOTAL 10223 5992 261
Figure **. Time – distance diagram for routes 3a and 3b
TIME, HOURS
Beijing
Warsaw Gdansk
Warsaw
DISTANCE, KM
Sea route (3a)
Rail route (3b)
(1b))
Warsaw
Warsaw
Gdansk
COSTS, USD
Sea route (3a)
Rail route (3b)
(1b))
123
Figure **. Cost – distance diagram for routes 3a and 3b
In this case, the advantage of rail transport is obvious. The difference in delivery times is
enormous: -31 days. Due to this and given the cost difference that accounts for only $
1065railway route be quite competitive with seain this case can.
Case 4. Route 4a is identical to route 2a. Data for route 4b is shown in table *.
Table *. Route 4b components
Route section Length, km Price, USD
(Railway tariffs)
Time, hours
Beijing rail terminal handling costs - 25 -
Beijing rail terminal other costs - 30 -
China (by rail) Beijing -Alashankou 3354 4675 86,5
Kazakhstan (by rail) Dostyk-
Petropavlovsk
1904 942 52
Russian Federation (by rail)
Petropavlovsk-Krasnoe
2845 1311 74
Belarus (by rail) Osinovka-Brest 609 487 20,5
Poland (by rail) Terespol-Warsaw 210 330 5
Warsaw rail terminal handling costs - 35 -
Warsaw rail terminal other costs - 45 -
Total 8922 7880 238
Beijing
TIME, HOURS
Warsaw Gdansk
Sea route (4a)
124
Figure **. Time – distance diagram for routes 4a and 4b
Figure **. Cost – distance diagram for routes 4a and 4b
Warsaw
Warsaw
Gdansk
Beijing
COSTS, USD
DISTANCE, KM
Sea route (4a)
Rail route (4b)
(1b))
125
The difference in the cost of shipping container for these two routes is $ 2953. The above chart
clearly reflectsthe impact of generally higher costs for rail transportation. The railroad crosses
the territory of 5 countries, and the total length of the path is 8 922 km, which is even smaller
than along the route of the Trans-Siberian railway, but due to the territory of Belarus crossing the
price for rail transportationincreases significantly. The difference in delivery times compared to
maritime transport is 33 days.
It should be noted that all the data relating to the cost of transportation on selected routes is
picked from the public open sources: open publication of official statistics of the EATL countries
and international organizations); analytical, statistical and empirical publications in specialized
media; web sites of state and private companies as well as web resources created for the
exchange of trade information.
At the same time, in each particular case price of transportation can and should be the subject of
negotiation between shippers, carriers and other interested parties.Typically, this leads to the
establishment of an acceptable price for these parties, which can differ significantly from the
average, indicative figures obtained in this and other studies.
Eurasian Development Bank study
The Eurasian Development Bank published in 2016 the research note containingsome
preliminary estimatesin regard to the potential transportation capacity and investment needs of
various Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) transportation routes that run across the Eurasian
Economic Union’s countries.
The study argues that currently the huge potential presented by land routes from China through
Central Asia to Europe is not being utilized. According to the study, out of all land routes, only
two are now in actual operation:
- Urumqi (XUAR) – Kazakhstan – Omsk – Moscow – EU (as regards transit, its estimated
utilization ratio at 20%); and
- Shanghai – Trans-Siberian Railroad – Brest (Trans-Siberian Railroad utilization ratio currently
reaches 100%).
The land route is considerably more expensive than the marine route. The study estimates the cost of
marine transportation along the Shanghai – Rotterdam route as 10 cents per ton per mile, while
the cost of railroad transportation is as high as 30 cents per ton per mile. Therefore, meaningful
trading volumes can be generated only when dealing with China's western provinces.
The list of goods that can be profitably carried by land from central and eastern provinces is very
limited and contains:
- export goods originating from China's western provinces (mostly the Xinjiang Uyghur
Autonomous Region, the Tibet Autonomous Region, and the Qinghai Province). The alternative
for those provinces is to take the goods to the shore (about 3,000 km), and then carry them by
sea;
- limited selection of goods originating from China's central and eastern provinces. These are
high unit added value products (electronic devices, automotive parts, pharmaceuticals, standard
126
and costume jewelry, etc.) and goods with critical delivery times (some food products, premium
textiles).
The study points out at 6 potential transit corridors that can be used to deliver cargoes along the
China – Europe route. These corridors are analyzed regarding their current condition and
potential that can be reached after upgrading.
Route 1: Urumqi (XUAR) – Kazakhstan – Omsk – Moscow – EU. The cost of cargo delivery via
this route strongly depends on the mode of transportation: it amounts to about US$ 1,300 per 1
TEU for railroad carriage. Design capacity of this route is the highest among all SREB routes at
300,000 TEUs. Its utilization ratio currently does not exceed 20% of maximum capacity.The
most established version of the Urumqi – EU route is the transport corridor passing through the
following cities: Lianyungang, Zhengzhou, Lanzhou, Urumqi, Khorgos, Almaty, Kyzylorda,
Aktobe, Orenburg, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, and Saint-Petersburg with access to
Baltic Sea ports. The bulk of transit cargoes use this route and the Trans-Siberian Railroad. One
of its key advantages is that there is only one customs border between China and Kazakhstan.
The route's most critical problem is its limited throughput capacity. To make it competitive, it
needs to be overhauled, and its transport and logistical infrastructure needs to be expanded.
The volume of funding required to modernize and improve railroads in Russia and Kazakhstan,
to develop the Urumqi – Omsk – Moscow – EU route, and to build six major logistical centers
(including those already in operation) is estimated at US$ 6 billion. Modernization will make it
possible not only to boost cargo turnover, but also to bring railroad transportation tariffs down
from US$ 1,300 per 1 TEU to US$ 1,000 per 1 TEU.
Route 2: Shanghai – Trans-Siberian Railroad – Brest; cargoes are delivered from China through
Russia's Far East Maritime Province (PrimorskyKrai). The cost of cargo delivery from
Vladivostok to Moscow using the Trans-Siberian Railroad currently stands at about US$ 1,100
per 1 TEU, and US$ 1,400 per 2 TEUs. The cost of railroad cargo delivery from Shanghai to
Brest (including freight costs) will be about US$ 2,200 per 1 TEU, and US$ 3,000 per 2 TEUs.
The overall throughput capacity of the routes is 250,000 TEUs, and it is already being fully
utilized. The key problem of the route is that it has to use the busiest section of the Trans-
Siberian Railroad: Omsk – Novosibirsk. This route is also longer than the Kazakhstan route. It
will require construction of a number of new railroads, in some cases in mountainous areas.
Subject to all those factors, this route will hardly prove to be attractive to China.
Estimates of required investments into modernization of the Trans-Siberian Railroad vary. The
cost of construction of new additional sorting stations with adjacent container logistical terminals
is estimated at US$ 2 billion. Efficient utilization and modernization of existing private terminals
and Russian Railways terminals and construction of several new logistical centers may reduce
that cost to US$ 1.2-1.4 billion. This will make it possible not only to increase the cargo
turnover, but also to reduce transportation tariffs to less than US$ 1,100 per 1 TEU for the Trans-
Siberian Railroad, and to about US$ 1,000 per 1 TEU for the Urumqi – Omsk – Brest route.
Route 3: Urumqi – Aktau – Makhachkala – Novorossiysk – Constanta. The cost of transportation
(including transshipment to container carriers) currently stands at about US$ 4,000 per 1 TEU
for deliveries to EU, and US$ 3,200 per 1 TEU for deliveries to the south of Russia. In theory,
this route can be used to transport about 100 thousand TEUs per year (subject to existing port
capacity and available fleet).
Route 4: Urumqi – Aktau – Makhachkala – Tbilisi – Constanta. The cost of cargo deliveries
from China to Georgia will amount to US$ 3,700 per 1 TEU. The route's current theoretical
127
throughput capacity does not exceed 50 thousand TEUs per year (subject to existing port
capacity and available fleet).
The first issue arising in connection with further development of trans-Caspian routes is that none of
the existing Caspian ports is ready to process massive cargo flows. All port facilities require serious
modernization. To use trans-Caspian routes, it will be necessary not only to modernize the ports, but
also to build new container logistical centers. Another problem is the need to use additional marine
transport.
Route 5: Urumqi – Aktau – Baku – Poti – Constanta. The route is the most expensive and has the
least throughput capacity of all the routes described above; besides, it has been used very little, if
at all. The cost of railroad cargo delivery is as high as US$ 5,000.
This route will require the most significant outlays, including completion of construction of
container facilities in Baku and port facilities in Poti, reconstruction of motorways, construction
of tunnels and container logistical centers. Total required capital expenditures are estimated at
not less than US$ 8 billion. That figure combined with the need to transship cargoes at several
ports makes the route basically useless.
Route 6: Urumqi – transit via Kazakhstan – Teheran (Iran). This route is much cheaper, and its
throughput capacity is much higher. The cost of railroad cargo delivery is up to US$ 1,700 per 1
TEU. Potential capacity of this route is one the highest among all routes described above, and stands
at 300,000 TEUs.
Minimum target investments required to develop this route are estimated at US$ 2 billion (source:
Ministry of Transportation of Iran). Design of the route development program is still under way.
Table * contains the main characteristics of the routes described above.
Table *. SREB Transport corridors and their potential
128
Authors of the study come to a conclusion that transport corridors through Central Asia and Russia
may potentially attract about 4% of total China – Europe marine cargo flows. Target export groups
include a broad range of products manufactured in China's western provinces (mostly the Xinjiang
Uyghur Autonomous Region, the Tibet Autonomous Region, and the Qinghai Province), and a
limited selection of goods originating from its central and eastern provinces.
Implementation of development programs and satellite investment projects may increase the
throughput capacity of SREB transport corridors to 3 million TEUs (which is about 13% of the
current Eurasian container flow).
According to the study, the “ideal” outcome is one where up to 1 million TEUs will travel through
Kazakhstan to Russia with subsequent partial delivery on to Europe (up to 30%), and another 1
million TEUs will transit through Aktau in the direction of Novorossiysk via Makhachkala to be
evenly divided between the Russian and South-European markets.
The situation with the routes to and through the Caucasus is more complex. Transcaucasian countries
do not consume much. Turkey, depending on cargo velocity and political situation, may accept
cargoes from Novorossiysk and Iran. Besides, the cost of direct marine transportation to Istanbul and
Izmir is too modest to expect that the Transcaucasian route will prove to be efficient even after multi-
billion investments.
129
The study also points out that an important restriction exists: attainment of maximum cargo
throughput capacity by the SREB routes will be contingent on the Kazakhstan transportation system
becoming capable of digesting 3 million TEUs.
Kazakhstan already has the required basic infrastructure (railroads, motorways, ports) in place.
However, there is a major shortage of technological superstructures – modern container processing
centers, customs terminals, and related logistical services. Qualified staff is also in short supply.
Taken together, those factors constitute a critical infrastructural barrier preventing any major increase
of cargo flows in Central Asia.
Eurasian overland routes: conditions for being competitive
The Euro-Asian transport network transport system is mainly already formed. The main routes
are demonstrating the practical capability of expensive and time-sensitive cargoes delivery
serving as a complement to maritime routes.
For objective reasons the Euro-Asian land bridge likely will never compete in volume with
maritime routes. But it may well establish itself as a complement to shipping services increasing
the reliability of high-value and time-sensitive supply chains.
The current crisis situation has its negative impact on Euro-Asian overland links in several
aspects:
- the general slow-down of transport demand;
- decreasing of the “critical mass” of traffic in landbridge corridors to keep the transport services
across them sustainable;
- limitations of the investment potential for infrastructure projects implementation;
- growing gap between the shipping rates and the railway rates (which is one of the main
disadvantages of the Euro-Asian landbridge).
At the same time, the current situation has some potential opportunities for the EATL transport
routes development.
A portion of time-sensitive transit can be redirected through inland EATL routes due to “slow
steaming” introduction on the maritime routes. Besides that, such events as the start of New Silk
Way initiative, Creation of the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and
Kazakhstan, accession of the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan to WTO improve
the general political-economic climate across the EATL area.
EATL transport routes combine the functions and features of different types of transport
corridors: transport and trade transit corridors, access corridors and developing corridors. On one
hand, this gives wide opportunities to EATL countries; on another, very important is a clear
understanding of actual possibilities, costs, benefits and risks that particular projects mean to
them and their partners who depend on each other in corridors’ development process.
Competition of transport corridors on the Euro-Asian continent is not about the simple choice
between transport routes and/or transport modes. It is the competition of logistic decisions based
on intermodal services and value-added services and focused at the needs of particular supply
chains. Main supply chains requirements are regular services, high punctuality, flexible costs,
value added services availability, delivery speed appropriate for certain types of cargo. These
130
requirements do not apply to particular sections of Euro-Asian routes, but to entire transport-
logistic chains.
Decision making in supply chains, in particular – choosing the routes and modes - is made
usually not by shippers themselves but by logistic operators: freight forwarders, 3 PL –
providers, etc., who combine the understanding of the needs of particular supply chain with deep
knowledge of transportation market and ability to put together the interests of numerous market
players: carriers, terminal operators, infrastructure owners, etc.
Considering that, any transport route within the Eurasian continent will attract traffic and trade
only being evaluated in the context of supply chains competition. No political decisions or
investment projects developed beyond this context will be successful in this sense. For the same
reasons the attempts to bind the freight flows within the corridors to particular fixed routes,
points or to selected transport modes seem counterproductive.
Railway transport should play the leading role within the EATL transport links.
In the current situation competitive railway services in EATL transit corridors can develop under
the following conditions:
a) location of Asian terminal points in North-Western China
b) location of European terminal points in Eastern Europe and
c) existence of guaranteed flow of high-value and time-sensitive cargo (automotive parts,
electronics, etc.) from one shipper or a limited group of “anchor” shippers as a basis for
sustainable regular service. Besides, the service should be better operated not by pure railway
carrier but by market-oriented logistic operator experienced in design of transport-logistic chains
The road transport within the EATL corridors should be harmonized with railway services and
complete them rather than directly compete with rail. The following spheres look most
reasonable: a) short-run cross border trade; b) long haul transportation on the lanes where
railway links do not exist or can’t provide effective services for certain commodities (perishable,
expensive, etc.); c) “road section” of intermodal rail-road transport service.
For effective long-haul trucking it is important to provide the even weight/length limitations for
road transport along the main EATL routes.
It appears that currently the role of logistic centers in the EATL links development is
underestimated. Being created in the hubs of EATL network, logistic centers could play the role
of modern market-oriented nodes of supply chains improving the competitiveness of the entire
EATL system.
Regular monitoring of corridors functioning is necessary not only for political needs but also as
an instrument used by logistic operators willing to arrange the best possible currently transport
chain.
131
1.5. Comparative analysis of the duration and expenses of different modes of transport
between Europe and Asia on selected Euro-Asian routes
132
II. CURRENT INITIATIVES, PROJECTS AND STUDIES IN EATL REGION
II.1. Overview of international studies, programmes and initiatives on Euro-Asian
transport links development
To be completed
134
II.1.2. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) was set up in 1947. UNECE's
major aim is to promote pan-European economic integration. UNECE includes 56 member
States in Europe, North America and Asia.
The UNECE has established 57 transport agreements and conventions which are negotiated by
government representatives and become legally binding for countries which ratify or accede to
them. These agreements and conventions create international safety and environmental standards
and regulations for transport and for motor vehicles and their trailers, harmonize national
regulations, make border crossings less complicated, and provide for the development of
coherent infrastructure networks for road, rail and inland waterway transport.
There are four main transport network agreements aimed at the development of coherent
networks for road, rail, inland waterways and combined transport respectively:
a) The European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR), established
in1975, provides UNECE governments with the international legal framework for the
construction and development of a coherent international road network with a view to
developing international road transport and traffic throughout the UNECE region.
The AGR defines the E-road network, consisting of the arteries channeling major international
road traffic flows in Europe, and the infrastructure parameters to which those arteries should
conform. The AGR is constantly kept under review and updated whenever necessary to adapt it
to new political and transport developments, such as the need for new roads in new States or
those created by new traffic flows.
One of the major revisionswas undertaken in order to include the international roads of the
countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. States that become Contracting Parties to the AGR
commit themselves to its implementation, including the construction or upgrade of the E-roads in
their territories, within the framework of their national investment programmes, although they
are given complete latitude as to the timing for the completion of construction works.
To date, 37 UNECE Member States have become Contracting Parties to the AGR.
b)The European Agreement on Main International Railway Lines (AGC), established
in1985, similarly provides the legal and technical framework for the development of a coherent
international rail network in the region. The AGC identifies the rail lines of major international
importance, the E-rail network, and defines the infrastructure parameters to which they should
conform.
The Agreement comprises the main body of the Agreement plus:
- definition of a network of railway lines of major international importance and
- definition of infrastructure parameters.
The AGC is also revised whenever necessary to take account of political and transportchanges in
Europe. It has undergone a major revision in recent years also to include the internationalrail
networks of the Caucasus and Central Asian countries.
135
Contracting Parties to theAGC commit themselves to its implementation, including the
construction or theupgrade of the E-rail lines in their territories, within the framework of their
national programmes but without any time constraints. To date, 27 UNECE Member States are
Parties to the AGC.
c) The European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines
andRelated Installations (AGTC), established in 1991, provides the technical and legal
framework for the development of efficient international combined road/rail transport
infrastructure and services. Combined road/rail transport comprises the transport of containers,
swap bodies and entire trucks on railway wagons to and from especially equipped terminals. The
AGTC determines important European railway lines used for international combined transport,
identifies all terminals, bordercrossingpoints, ferry links and other installations important for
international combined transportservices. It also establishes internationally acceptable
infrastructure standards for those lines andrelated combined transport installations, and
prescribes internationally acceptable performanceparameters of trains and combined transport
installations and equipment.
Contracting Parties to the AGTC commit themselves to its implementation, including the
construction or the upgrade of the railway lines and related combined transport installations in
their territories, within the framework of their national programmes but without any time
constraints. To date, 32 UNECE Member States have become Parties to the AGTC.
d) The European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International
Importance(AGN), established in 1996, establishes the internationally agreed European
network of inland waterways and ports as well as theuniform infrastructure and operational
parameters to which they should conform. The geographicalscope of the E-waterways network,
consisting of navigable rivers, canals and coastal routes extendsfrom the Atlantic to the Ural,
connecting 37 countries and reaching beyond the European region.
By acceding to the AGN, governments commit themselves to the development and
constructionof their inland waterways and ports of international importance in accordance with
the uniformconditions agreed upon and within their investment programmes. To date, 18
UNECE Member States have become Parties to the AGN.
These four international Agreements define respectively the E transport networks for different
modes as well as the minimum technical requirements according to which the relevant
infrastructures should be built.AGTC also includes operational parameters for combined
transport services.
UNECE infrastructure agreements are the only Pan-European governmental basis for the
longtermdevelopment of coherent international networks for the various modes of inland
transport.As such, they were taken as a basis for the determination of the Pan-European transport
corridorsat the Pan-European Transport Conferences in Crete and Helsinki.
The E road and E rail networks represent the most useful basis for the identification of
priorityEuro–Asian transport corridors.
To ensure seamless connections throughout Europe, including access to markets, UNECE
coordinates work on a Trans-European network for motorways (TEM) and rail (TER) in Central,
Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.
The UNECE Trans-European Motorways (TEM) Projectestablished in 1977 is a sub-regional
cooperation among Central, Eastern and South Eastern European countries. The project is aimed to
136
facilitate road traffic in Europe, to improve the quality and efficiency of transport operations, to
balance existing gaps and disparities between motorway networks in Western, Eastern, Central and
South-Eastern Europe, and to assist the integration process of European transport infrastructure
systems.
TEM is the backbone of the Pan -European Road Corridors in CEE and of the Transport
Infrastructure Needs Assessment(TINA) exercise. Initial financial support was provided by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the executing agency is UNECE. There are
15 TEM member countries: Armenia, Austria (associate member), Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. 4 other countries have observer status: Montenegro, Serbia,
Sweden and Ukraine. Azerbaijani membership is currently pending, awaiting signature for
accession.
The UNECE Trans-European Railway (TER) Project established in 1990is a sub-regional
cooperation among Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries. The project is aimed
to In order to improve the quality and efficiency of transport operations, to assist the integration
process of European transport infrastructure systems, and to develop a coherent and efficient
international railway and combined transport system in accordance with the UNECE Pan-
European infrastructure agreements: European Agreement on Main International Railway Lines
(AGC) and European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and
Related Installations (AGTC).
Initial financial support was provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP);
the executing agency is UNECE
There are 17 member countries: Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey. In addition, a number of observer countries participate in
certain activities of the project: Belarus, Latvia, Moldova, Montenegro, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and UkraineAzerbaijani membership is pending, awaiting signature for
accession
The execution of the TEM and TER projects is provided by the TEM and TER Master Plan
which sets out the priority infrastructure needs, the backbone networks and a realistic investment
plan to develop them.
The original Master Plan was published in 2006, presenting a reliable and pragmatic short-
,medium- and long-term investment strategy for developing road, rail and combined
transportbackbone networks in the participating countries. The document was revised between
2008 and 2011 in order to analyze the results of road and rail infrastructure development, to
describe the existing statusof road and rail networks; and to set out their development
programme until the year 2020.
The revised Master Plan counts for 191 rail and 512 road projects with total cost of 196,97
billion Euros.
137
Figure *.TEM Master plan revision backbone network
Figure *.TER Master plan revision backbone network
140
II.1.3. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP)
Made up of 53 Member States and 9 Associate Members, with a geographical scope that
stretches from Turkey in the west to the Pacific island nation of Kiribati in the east, and from the
Russian Federation in the north to New Zealand in the south, the region is home to 4.1 billion
people, or two thirds of the world’s population. This makes ESCAP the most comprehensive of
the United Nations five regional commissions, and the largest United Nations body serving the
Asia-Pacific region.
Established in 1947 with its headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand, ESCAP works to overcome
some of the region’s greatest challenges by providing results oriented projects, technical
assistance and capacity building to member States in the areas of Sustainable Development,
Macroeconomic Policy and Financing for DevelopmentTrade, Investment and Innovation,
Transport, Social Development, Environment and Development, Information and
Communications Technology, Disaster Risk Reduction, Statistics, Sub-regional activities for
development.
In the transport sector UNESCAP is supporting the following directions of development:
b) Asian Highway network. The Asian Highway network is a regional transport cooperation
initiative aimed at enhancing the efficiency and development of the road infrastructure in Asia,
supporting the development of Euro-Asia transport linkages and improving connectivity for
landlocked countries.
c) Trans-Asian Railway network. The Trans-Asian Railway network now comprises 117,500 km
of railway lines serving 28 member countries. Much like yesterday's Silk Road, today's Trans-
Asian Railway aims to serve cultural exchanges and trade within Asia and between Asia and
Europe. Recognizing that the network would reach its full operational capabilities through greater
harmonization of standards and acknowledging the need for a regional framework to discuss related
issues, Member States negotiated an Intergovernmental Agreement on the Trans-Asian Railway
Network. The Agreement entered into force on 11 June 2009.
c) Intermodal regional network and dry ports. The Ministerial Conference on Transport held in
the Republic of Korea in November 2006 noted that the Asian Highway and Trans-Asian
Railway networks constituted two important building blocks for the realization of the vision of
an international integrated intermodal transport and logistics system which the ESCAP region
needs to serve new trade patterns. Ministers resolved to develop policies along a number of
guiding principles which included giving priority to investment in the Asian Highway and Trans-
Asian Railway networks, including intermodal interfaces, and promoting the development of
economic and logistics activities at intermodal interfaces.
Reaping the benefits of intermodalism requires that these intermodal interfaces such as dry ports
or inland container depots be planned carefully to serve as efficient cross-over points where
freight can switch modes without delays or damage.
The organization works with its member States to strengthen connectivity, optimize the use of
existing infrastructure and increase the level of integration between the different transport
modes. In order to finance these transport infrastructure and systems, UNESCAP offers advice
141
on financing options and advocates public-private partnerships including network coordination,
diagnostic workshops and online training materials and courses.
Project on Development of seamless rail-based intermodal transport services in Northeast and
Central Asia for enhancing Euro-Asian transport linkages and its implementation.
The purpose of this project is to:
(i) review transport documentation, conventions and procedures applying to intermodal cargo
transport across maritime and land borders in the sub-region;
(ii) identify problems related to border crossing efficiency which may be resolved by the
streamlining and harmonization of existing documentation and procedures;
(iii) recommend improvements to documentation and procedures with a view to eliminating
delays to transport at seaports and land borders and contributing to smooth transport flows across
borders.
Fact-finding missions to five participating countries of Northeast and Central Asia - Korea,
China, Russian Federation, Mongolia and Kazakhstan - are to be conducted in April and May
2016 for the purpose of identifying current practices and problems with respect border crossing
documentation and control.
The study was prepared by UNESCAP Secretariat on the basis of desk research and of data
collected from freight forwarders and government officials and private sector on the applicable
documentation and procedures. The study provides the analysis of the current situation and
presents recommendations for the harmonization and improvement of documentation and
procedures in this sub-region. In particular, it recommends the adoption of a new transport
document which has been designed to accommodate all transport modes, including railways,
which have been so far excluded from the coverage of multi-modal transport documents.
143
II.1.4. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,
Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)
The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,
Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) was
established by the United Nations General Assembly in 2001 through its resolution 56/227 with
functions recommended by the Secretary-General in paragraph 17 of his report A/56/645.
The key functions of the OHRLLS are as follows:
(a) To assist the Secretary-General in ensuring the full mobilization and coordination of all parts
of the United Nations system, with a view to facilitating the coordinated implementation of and
coherence in the follow-up and monitoring of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed
Countries at the country, regional and global levels;
(b) To provide coordinated support to the Economic and Social Council as well as the General
Assembly in assessing progress and in conducting the annual review of the implementation of
the Programme of Action;
(c) To support, as appropriate, the coordinated follow-up of the implementation of the Global
Framework This Global Framework has now been replaced by the Almaty Declaration and
Programme of Action, 2003 for Transit Transport Cooperation between Landlocked and Transit
Developing Countries and the Donor Community and the Programme of Action for the
Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States;
(d) To undertake appropriate advocacy work in favour of the least developed countries,
landlocked developing countries and small island developing States in partnership with the
relevant parts of the United Nations as well as with the civil society, media, academia and
foundations;
(e) To assist in mobilizing international support and resources for the implementation of the
Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries and other programmes and initiatives
for landlocked developing countries and small island developing States;
(f) To provide appropriate support to group consultations of Least Developed Countries,
Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States.
In August, 2003, the International Ministerial Conference of Landlocked and Transit Developing
Countries and Donor Countries on Transit Transport Cooperation (Almaty Ministerial
Conference) was held in Almaty, Kazakhstan, setting the necessities of Landlocked and Transit
Developing Countries in a universal document - Almaty Program of Action: “Addressing the
Special Needs of Landlocked Developing Countries within a New Global Framework for Transit
Transport Cooperation for Landlocked and Transit Developing Countries”.
The general objectives of the Program were as follows:
- reduce customs processes and fees to minimize costs and transport delays;
- improve infrastructure with respect to existing preferences of local transport modes, where road
should be focused in Africa and rail in South Asia;
144
- implement preferences for landlocked countries’ commodities to boost their competitiveness in
the international market;
- establish relationships between donor countries with landlocked and transit countries for
technical, financial and policy improvements.
During the Second United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries that was
held in 2014 in Vienna, Austria, a 10 year action-plan was adopted – the “Vienna Programme of
Action for Landlocked Developing Countries for the Decade 2014-2024”.
The Vienna Programme is centered upon addressing the challenges faced by landlocked
countries, aims to contribute to the eradication of poverty stemming from their landlockedness,
through the implementation of specific actions in the priority areas identified by the document:
Priority 1: Fundamental transit policy issues
Priority 2: Infrastructure development and maintenance
(a) Transport infrastructure
(b) Energy and information and communications technology infrastructure
Priority 3: International trade and trade facilitation
(a) International trade
(b) Trade facilitation
Priority 4: Regional integration and cooperation
Priority 5: Structural economic transformation
Priority 6: Means of implementation
The main innovative feature of the Vienna Programme of Action is the particular focusto the
development and expansion of efficient transit systems and transport development, enhancement
of competitiveness, expansion of trade, structural transformation, regional cooperation, and the
promotion of inclusive economic growth and sustainable development to reduce poverty, build
resilience, bridge economic and social gaps and ultimately help transform those countries into
land-linked countries.
http://unohrlls.org/
145
II.1.5. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), established in1964,
promotes the development-friendly integration of developing countries into the worldeconomy
by carrying out three key functions: operating as a forum for intergovernmentaldeliberations
supported by discussions with experts and exchanges of experience for consensusbuilding;
undertaking research, policy analysis and data collection; and providing technicalassistance to
developing countries.
The objective of the Division on Technology and Logistics is to enhance the
economicdevelopment and competitiveness of developing countries through efficient trade
logisticsservices, transit transport systems, increased access to and sustainable utilization of
informationand communication technology, and training and capacity-building programmes for
localinstitutions.
As part of the preparatory process of the midterm review of the Almaty Programme of
Action,the UNCTAD Expert Meeting held in 2007 provided a forum to explore models and
bestpractices to improve international transit transport operations based on practical solutions
with aview to enhancing transit transport for the benefit of landlocked and transit developing
countries.
In July 2008, UNCTAD organized a global preparatory meeting on the midterm review ofthe
Almaty Programme of Action to affirm progress on the implementation of trade facilitationfor
the benefit of landlocked and transit developing countries.
Responding to the specific problems of LLDCs requires a multidimensional approach to
landlockedness as a development challenge. This notably implies the implementation of policies
and measures aimed at economic restructuring and specialization in these countries that take into
account their transport-related obstacles. The development of productive capacities is a key
element of this process.
In this context, UNCTAD supports LLDCs to tackle persisting and emerging challenges by
providing advisory services and organizing high-level expert group meetings, among others to
address key challenges facing these countries. Among the main outputs are:
- preparation of policy-focused studies at the request of LLDCs;
- supporting LLDCs to attract Foreign Direct Investments
http://unctad.org/en/Pages/ALDC/Landlocked%20Developing%20Countries/UN-recognition-of-
the-problems-of-land-locked-developing-countries.aspx
146
II.1.6. United Nations Special Programme for the Economies of Central Asia (UN SPECA)
The United Nations Special Programme for the Economies of Central Asia (SPECA), a joint
UNECE-UNESCAP initiative, was launched in 1998 to address challenges faced by Central
Asian countries. It particularly aims to strengthen sub-regional cooperation and integrate the
region into the world economy..
Thematic Working Group on Sustainable Transport, Transit and Connectivity (TWG-STTC) is a
subsidiary body of SPECA. It focuses on developing new, and extending existing, road and rail
networks in the region, as well as implementing the Programme of action resulting from the
Almaty declaration of Land-Locked and Transit Developing Countries.
SPECA Project Working Group on Transport focuses on the development of Euro-Asian transport
linkages, including the possible extension of the TER and TEM networks into the region. It plays
an active role in the implementation of Vienna Program of Action for Landlocked Developing
Countries for the Decade 2014-2024. The activities of the SPECA Project Working Group on
transport is supported by the UNECE and UNESCAP in a coordinated and mutually reinforcing
way.
The SPECA Governing Council on its tenth session in November 2015 decided to change the
title from “Project Working Group on Transport and Border Crossing” to the “Thematic
Working Group on Sustainable Transport, Transit and Connectivity” (TWG-STTC) with new
objectives added in line with the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda adopted by the United
Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 and the commitment to its implementation,
including the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 201 session of
SPECA Governing Council in Ashgabat confirmed a strong potential of SPECA for supporting
and facilitating the achievement of the SDGs. The SPECA framework, including its Governing
Council, Economic Forums, and Working Groups can provide an important platform for
supporting progress towards many of the SDGs through the exchange of best practice, capacity-
building, joint development and implementation of regional projects and the sharing of
experience on the use of new financial mechanisms and partnerships.
Member-states: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan.
Priorities that are most
important for the
EATL development
Implementation of international transport conventions and agreements;
Establishment and operation of national coordinating mechanisms for transport
facilitation;
Identification and elimination of major bottlenecks along international transport
routes;
Creation of transport database;
Establishment and strengthening of public-private partnerships;
Road safety improvement;
SDGs implementation
The TWG will facilitate policy discussions on strategic issues on strengthening regional cooperation
and integration through enhanced transport connectivity and collection and dissemination of
transport statistics with special focus on implementation of sustainable development goals. More
specifically, the TWG’s activity aimed to:
147
oversee the implementation of transport-related activities and initiatives at national and
subregional level, including development of road and railway networks, dry ports as well as
facilitate intermodal transport in SPECA countries;
support the establishment and operation of national coordinating mechanisms for transport
facilitation;
facilitate the implementation of ESCAP agreements in transport such as the
intergovernmental agreements on Asian Highway, Trans-Asian Railway and Dry Ports;
assist in identification and elimination of major bottlenecks along international transport
routes in SPECA region and beyond;
facilitate the development of the SPECA TWG special database on transport and border
crossing activities for the SPECA countries as well as collection of transport statistics;
promote public-private partnerships in the SPECA region and innovative financing
mechanism for transport infrastructure development;
work towards improving road safety to reduce road traffic fatalities and casualties in the
SPECA region;
support the efforts of the participating countries to implement 2030 development agenda by
enhancing the sustainability of transport;
ensure more focus on those efforts which would result in strengthening regional cooperation
aimed at achieving transport related SDGs;
serve as a forum for inland transport stakeholders to discuss strategic issues, exchange of
experiences, lessons learned and good practice, as well as for national and subregional efforts
in transport sector related to increasing sustainability of transport and achieving SDGs;
develop and implement transport projects, when possible, in line with relevant SDGs and
targets to contribute to 2030 development agenda;
148
II.1.7. European Union initiatives
The European Commission aims to develop and promote transport policies that are efficient,
safe, secure and sustainable, to create the conditions for a competitive industry that generates
jobs and prosperity.
As of January 2014, the EU has a new transport infrastructure policy that will connect the
continent from east to west, north to south. This policy aims to close the gaps between national
transport networks, remove bottlenecks that still hamper the smooth functioning of the single
market and overcome technical barriers such as incompatible standards for rail traffic.
The trans-European transport network, or TEN-T, is a longstanding project to modernize and
‘knit together’ today’s patchwork of national parts into a smooth-running transport network.
With the TEN-T, the EU plans to establish a core transport network by 2030, filling in missing
cross-border links and making the network ‘smarter’, with deadlines to make sure that all
projects contributing to the core network are implemented as a priority.
Currently nine core network corridors are identified, based on their added value for TEN-T
development and their maturity status. Core network corridors were introduced to facilitate the
coordinated implementation of the core network. They bring together public and private
resources and concentrate EU support from the CEF, particularly to remove bottlenecks, build
missing cross-border connections and promote modal integration and interoperability.
One of the EU constant priorities is the development of effective transport links with their
Eastern and Southern neighbor states and, via them – with countries of Central and Eastern Asia.
The regional EU-assistance in transport benefitting the eastern neighbors is channeled, in
particular, under the TRACECA-programme, an acronym referring to Transport Corridor
Europe-Caucasus-Asia. This EU programme was launched in 1993 to develop a transport
corridor from Europe to China, via the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea and Central
Asia (see p. ***).
In 2009 EU and six partner countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of
Moldova and Ukraine) established the Eastern Partnership (EaP), a joint initiative building also
on bilateral relations. This cooperation has a certain transportation aspect – the EaP Transport
Panel which is is a framework for exchange of information and best practice between the partner
countries and the EU Member States. Its goal is to strengthen transport connections both between
the partner countries and the EU and between partner countries themselves. It addresses reforms
underpinning regulatory convergence across transport modes. Policy work conducted in this area
includes certain transportation issues, in particular:
The EaP regional transport network (approved 2013 and included in the indicative TEN-T
maps);
Regulatory convergence, which became a priority notably for countries having signed
Association Agreements with the EU;
Regional transport cooperation and capacity building actions in all transport modes.
150
II.1.8. Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)
The Eurasian Economic Union is an international organization established in 2014 for regional
economic integration. It has international legal personality and is established by the Treaty on the
Eurasian Economic Union.
The Member-States of the Eurasian Economic Union are the Republic of Armenia, the Republic
of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation.
The EAEU provides for free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, pursues
coordinated, harmonized and single policy in the sectors determined by the Treaty and
international agreements within the Union.
Transportation is among the priorities of the integration process within the Union. Integration in
the spheres of transportand natural monopolies (railways among them) are embodied in Section
XIX «NaturalMonopolies» and Section XXI «Transport» of the Treaty on the Union.
According to the Treaty on the EAEU, the Union shall conduct coordinated (agreed) transport
policy aimed at economic integration, consistent and gradual establishment of a Common
Transport Area.
Common Transport Area means a range of transport systems of Member States providing for
free movement of vehicles, passengers and cargo as well as vehicle compatibility based on the
harmonized transport legislation of Member States.
Member States shall develop coordinated (agreed) transport policy.
The Main Directions and Implementation Stages of the Coordinated (Agreed) Transport Policy
of theEurasian Economic Union are supposed to be approved by the Supreme Eurasian
Economic Council by the end of 2016.
Eurasian Economic Commission is the Permanent regulatory body of the EAEU. Its main
functions in the transport sphere are as follows:
- developing proposals on economic integration in transport sphere;
- developing proposals for transport legislation harmonization of the Union Member States;
- monitoring implementation of the Coordinated (Agreed) Transport Policy by the
MemberStates;
- coordinating work on identification and elimination of exemptions, limitations and barriers
tothe functioning of the internal Union transport market;
- conducting comparative analysis of the Member States regulation of transport natural
monopoly entities;
- promoting harmonization in natural monopolies regulation regarding environmental issues and
energy efficiency.
151
Figure *. Main roads and railway routes on the territory of the EAEU Member States
http://eec.eaeunion.org/en/Pages/default.aspx
152
II.1.9. New Silk Way - Belt and Road Initiative
The refers to the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, a significant
development strategy launched by the Chinese government with the intention of promoting
economic co-operation among countries along the proposed Belt and Road routes. The Initiative
has been designed to enhance the orderly free flow of economic factors and the efficient
allocation of resources. It is also intended to further market integration and create a regional
economic co-operation framework of benefit to all.
The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) issued its Vision and Actions on
Jointly Building the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road on 28
March 2015. This outlined the framework, key areas of co-operation and co-operation
mechanisms with regard to the Belt and Road Initiative.
The Belt and Road Initiative upholds the principles of jointly developing the programme through
consultation with all interested parties. Existing bilateral and multilateral co-operation
mechanisms will be utilized to promote the integration of the development strategies of the
countries along the route. Steps will be taken to advance the signing of co-operation
memorandums of understanding or co-operation plans for the establishment of a number of
bilateral co-operation demonstration projects. Efforts will also be made to set up a sound
bilateral joint work mechanism, and to devise an implementation plan and action roadmap for
advancing the Belt and Road strategy.
The US$40 billion Silk Road Fund has been established to finance the Belt and Road Initiative.
It will invest mainly in infrastructure and resources, as well as in industrial and financial
cooperation. The Fund was set up as a limited liability company in December 2014 with its
founding shareholders including China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange, the China
Investment Corp, the Export-Import Bank of China and the China Development Bank.
The new multilateral development bank - Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has been
set up with a view to complementing and cooperating with the existing MDBs in order to address
infrastructure needs in Asia. AIIB will focus on the development of infrastructure and other
productive sectors in Asia, including energy and power, transportation and telecommunications,
rural infrastructure and agriculture development, water supply and sanitation, environmental
protection, urban development and logistics.
Transportwise the Belt and Road Initiative aims to connect Asia, Europe and Africa along five
routes. The Silk Road Economic Belt focusses on: (1) linking China to Europe through Central
Asia and Russia; (2) connecting China with the Middle East through Central Asia; and (3)
bringing together China and Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Indian Ocean. The 21st Century
Maritime Silk Road, meanwhile, focusses on using Chinese coastal ports to: (4) link China with
Europe through the South China Sea and Indian Ocean; and (5) connect China with the South
Pacific Ocean through the South China Sea.
Focusing on the above mentioned five routes, the Belt and Road will take advantage of
international transport routes as well as core cities and key ports to further strengthen
collaboration and build six international economic co-operation corridors. These have been
identified as the New Eurasia Land Bridge, China-Mongolia-Russia, China-Central Asia-West
Asia, China-Indochina Peninsula, China-Pakistan, and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar.
153
Figure *.Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road corridors as
described in the Vision and Actions on Jointly building the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21-st
Century Maritime Silk Road document
http://beltandroad.hktdc.com/en/about-the-belt-and-road-initiative/about-the-belt-and-road-
initiative.aspx
154
II.1.10. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has a comprehensive
approach to security that encompasses politico-military, economic and environmental, and
human aspects. It therefore addresses a wide range of security-related concerns, including arms
control, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, national minorities,
democratization, policing strategies, counter-terrorism and economic and environmental
activities. All 57 participating States enjoy equal status, and decisions are taken by consensus on
a politically, but not legally binding basis.
Transport related issues have been high on the OSCE’s agenda in the Economic and
Environmental Dimension in recent years.In the field of transport the Office of the Coordinator
ofOSCE Economic and Environmental Activities (OCEEA),together with the OSCE field
operations, continuesto implement the relevant Ministerial Council Decisionsadopted over the
past years, namely MC DecisionNo. 11/06 on Future Transport Dialogue in the OSCE(Brussels,
2006), MC Decision No. 9/08 on Follow-Upto the Sixteenth Economic and Environmental
Forum onMaritime and Inland Waterways Co-operation (Helsinki, 2008) and the most recent
MC Decision No. 11/11 on Strengthening Transport Dialogue in the OSCE (Vilnius, 2011).
Based on these documents, the OCEEA and partner organizations such as the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Transport Division and the World Customs
Organization (WCO) are engaged in activities described below.
The security of inland transport. This issue has been noted as the weakest in the global supply
chain. Relative to seaports and airports, many consider inland transportation to be under-
protected. The OSCE has responded by promoting a comprehensive, integrated approach
towards inland transport security taking into account the views and concerns of various
stakeholders.
Good governance and anti-corruption. The OCEEA assists participating States by providing
capacity building and regional training activities aimed at combating corruption in customs and
other border services. In carrying out these activities, the OCEEA aims to raise awareness of the
existing tools to fight corruption in border services and to work with participating States to
identify concrete national follow-up activities in this field.
International legal instruments. The OCEEA assists participating States in organizing regional
training activities and national seminars to discuss the implementation of the following
international legal instruments in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and
Central Asia: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) International
Convention on the Harmonization of Frontier Control of Goods (‘Harmonization Convention’);
World Customs Organization (WCO) revised Kyoto Convention on the Simplification and
Harmonization of Customs Procedures; World Customs Organization (WCO) SAFE Framework
of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade.
Assistance to Landlocked Developing Countries.Out of 31 landlocked developing countries
globally, nine are OSCE participating States or Partners for Co-operation. The specific transport
challenges landlocked developing countries face include lack of direct access to deep water ports
and a high level of dependence on the transit services of non-landlocked neighbors. Addressing
those challenges requires the development of efficient transport systems through genuine public
and private partnerships between landlocked and transit countries and their development
155
partners. While the international donor community, including financial and development
institutions and donor countries, have a major role to play in providing financial and technical
support for the construction of transport infrastructure, the OSCE has focused on tackling non-
physical obstacles to trade and transport. Since 2006 the OSCE has provided political and
financial support to the UNECE’s Euro-Asian Transport Links Project (Phases I and II).
OSCE-UNECE Handbook of Best Practices at Border Crossings.In February 2012, the
OCEEA and the Transport Division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) jointly released a OSCE-UNECE Handbook of Best Practices at Border Crossings – A
Trade and Transport Facilitation Perspective. The handbook aims to assist OSCE participating
States/ UNECE member States, particularly those which are landlocked developing countries
with limited access to world markets, in developing more efficient border, transport and customs
policies. The publication provides an overview of a range of reference materials and over 120
best practice examples. It covers areas such as available legal instruments, inter-agency and
international co-operation, balancing security and facilitation measures, freight processing, risk
management, border crossing point design, ICT technology use, human resource management
and benchmarking.
http://www.osce.org/eea/98372?download=true
156
II.1.11. Organization for Cooperation of Railways (OSJD)
The Organization for Cooperation of Railways (OSJD) was established in 1956 by the railway
administrations of the ‘Eastern Block’ countries to create and improve the coordination of
international rail transport. Concerning especially the transports between Europe and Asia, it has
helped develop cooperation between railways and with other international organizations.
Member-states: Azerbaijan, Albania, Afghanistan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Vietnam, Georgia, Iran,
Kazakhstan, China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Russia, Romania, Slovakia, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Estonia.
Apart from them, OSJD incorporates 7 railways with observer status from:France
(SNCF),Germany (DB AG),Finland (VR),Serbia (ZS),Greece (OSE),Austrian-Hungarian
company "GySEV",Federal Passenger Company (FPC JSC, Russia).
Priorities that are most
important for the
EATL development
Development and improvement of international railway transportation with the
traffic between Europe and Asia, including combined transportation;
Development of consentaneous transport policy in the field of international
railway traffic;
Improvement of international transport law, administration of the Convention
concerning International Goods Traffic by Rail (SMGS) and other legal
documents connected with the international railway traffic;
Co-operation on the solution of the problems connected with the economic,
information, scientific, technological and ecological aspects of railway transport;
Development of measures aimed at the increase of railway transport
competitiveness;
Co-operation in the field of railway operation and technical matters connected
with further development of international railway traffic;
collaboration with other international organizations, engaged in railway
transportation matters, including those of combined transport.
In 1996, 13 main railway routes between Europe and Asia were identified by the OSJD on the
basis of flows of goods between countries on the two continents. On a permanent basis the OSJD
performs an analysis of technical and operational indicators and technical equipment of these 13
corridors, collected data on infrastructure and border crossings and studied ways of improving
the freight transport technology. This work resulted in comprehensive measures being drafted to
improve the organization of international rail transport operations along the transport corridors
between Europe and Asia.
The XLIII session of the OSJD Ministerial Conference (Ulan-Bator, Mongolia, June 2-5, 2015)
approved Comprehensive plans of carriage improvement and development of OSJD Railway
Transport Corridors Nos. 4, 6 and 11 for a period up to 2020 and reported on the progress of the
related comprehensive plans for transport corridors Nos. 9, 12 and 13.
The map of the OSJD corridors is presented on Fig.*
The interested countries signed memoranda of understanding for the development of these
corridors, which served as a basis for coordinated actions by States to reorganize and modernize
pertinent railway lines.
157
Figure*/. OSJD railway transport corridors
One of the projects initiated by OSJD aimed to improve the conditions of Euro-Asian railway
transportation is the CIM/SMGS consignment note. This single transport document combines the
required CIM and SMGS contracts of carriage into one paper.
The customs authorities officially recognize this document of carriage. The document is valid in
the EU/EFTA customs area as transit declaration T and also in the SMGS regime as a national
customs (transit) document. The CIM/SMGS consignment note can not only be used for
wagonload services, but also for Combined Transport.
Using the new consignment note means documents no longer have to be changed at border
crossings between two legal jurisdictions, dispensing with a great deal of administrative
expenditure: a first step towards being able to provide through service for freight transport with
just minimal border stops.
The development of the action plan on implementation of the Memorandum on cooperation in
the technical, operational and commercial development of OSJD railway transport corridors Nos.
1-13 was continued:
The first meeting between the members states of OSJD railway transport corridor No. 1
regarding implementation of the provisions of the memorandum was held in Moscow (Russia
Federation) on March 4, 2015. Special attention was paid to the creation of the Coordination
Committee.
As part of the panel meeting (April 7-10, 2015, Kishinev, Republic of Moldova), a meeting
between the member countries of OSJD railway transport corridors Nos. 12 and 13 was held on
the implementation of the provisions of the Memorandum. Special attention was paid at these
meetings to the creation of the Coordination Board that should be focused on the analysis of the
parameters of the railway infrastructure of the border cross points and preparation of the plan of
the infrastructure development and improvement. The analysis of the key components of the
158
Comprehensive Plan of development of the corridors should make a basis for balanced
development of the sections of the corridors.
To improve the efficiency of the OSJD railway transport corridors, the experts studied the
possibilities of connection of the new lines to the OSJD railway transport corridors, in particular:
- at the suggestion of the Republic of Moldova, the member states of OSJD railway transport
corridor No. 12 and Ukraine have agreed to extend OSJD railway transport corridor No. 12 in
the territory of the Republic of Moldova from Ocniţa station to Vălcineţ station and then in the
territory of Ukraine to Zhmerinka station subject to preservation of the current crossing capacity
in the territory of Ukraine at this stage. The relevant changes in OSJD railway transport corridor
No. 12 were approved at the annual meeting of the OSJD Commission on Transport Policy and
Development Strategy (October 6-9, 2015, the OSJD Committee).
Besides, the member states of railway transport corridors Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 10 accepted the
proposal made by the Republic of Kazakhstan on connection of the following railway lines:
- Iletsk – Kabdyagash – Nikeltau – Tobol as a branch line of OSJD railway transport corridor
No. 2;
- Zhetygen – Altynkol as a branch line of OSJD Railway Transport Corridor No. 5;
- Beyneu – Uzen – Bolashak OSJD Transport Corridor No. 8;
- Dostyk – Mointy – Zhezkazgan – Saksaulskaya – Beyneu – Aktau-Port OSJD railway transport
corridor No. 10.
In this connection, a resolution was passed to update the Comprehensive plans on improvement
of the railway operations and development of OSJD railway transport corridors Nos. 2, 5, 8, 10
and 12 up to 2020, as well as the engineering and operational documentation of OSJD Transport
Corridors Nos. 2, 5, 8, 10 and 12, and to amend the Memorandum on cooperation in the
engineering, operational and commercial development of the OSJD railway transport corridors
with regard to the above mentioned corridors.
Ukraine informed the OSJD Committee that the initiative connect port Odessa, port Ilyichyevsk
(Ukraine), through the territory of Belarus, with port Klaipeda (Lithuania) was supported by the
Byelorussian Railway and the Lithuanian Railways, and suggested that existing OSJD railway
transport corridor No. 9 should be extended. The working bodies of the OSJD Commission on
Transport Policy and Development Strategy commenced the work on this question on the basis
of the OSJD regulatory documents.
Pursuant to the resolution of the OSJD Ministerial Conference, the representatives of the OSJD
member states took part in the second joint discussion group on interaction of the OSJD railway
transport corridors held in Brussels (Belgium) on June 18 – 19, 2015. The discussion group was
also attended by the representatives of the EC railway freight corridors, the OSJD Committee,
DG MOVE and other international organisations concerned. A number of agreements was
reached on further cooperation between OSJD and DG MOVE with regard to the development of
the OSJD transport corridors and EC railway freight corridors and the interchange of experience
to enhance the competitive power of the railway operations.
Besides, as part of this sub-subject, a meeting of the representatives of the OSJD member states
and member states of EC railway freight corridors No. 8 was held on October 13, 2015 at the
suggestion of Bureau on control of this EC corridor.
159
The activity of OSJD Commission on Freight Traffic in 2015 was carried out in the following
directions:
- updating the existing international agreements and contracts in the field of combined
transportation between Europe and Asia;
- implementing tariff conditions in regard to the transit freight transportation;
- updating the existing rules on common use of freight wagons in the international traffic for the
purpose of ensuring their harmonization with similar international regulating documents;
- harmonising the uniform system of cargo classification and coding;
- planning and organising container block trains between Europe and Asia, including combined
transport;
- practical implementation of uniform CIM/SMGS consignments notes in the rail transport
between Europe and Asia;
- cooperation with the international organizations in the aim to increase the efficiency and
competitiveness of the international railway transport and modal shift from other modes of
transport.
160
II.1.12. Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)
The Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) was established in 1999
tofoster interaction and to ensure peace, stability and prosperity among its Member States.The
membership of BSEC currently includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia,
Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine.
Since its inception, BSEC paid special attention to cooperation in transport focusing mainly on
how to utilize effectively intra-region capacity and growing transit potential of the Black Sea
region. At the Meeting of the Ministers of Transport of the BSEC Member States in 2005, it
wasconcluded that the development of transport axes connecting the Trans-European
TransportNetwork with the Black Sea transport network should be based on the Euro–Asian
transportcorridors and on the major routes under the UNECE-UNESCAP EATL framework as
well ason other international agreements and initiatives.
BSEC has theWorking Group on Transport has its regular meetings and it carries out its
functions as a working organ of cooperation in transport sphere.
The meetings of the Ministers of Transport of the BSEC Member State constitute de-facto a
decision making regular high-level transport forum with its mechanism of implementation -
working group, steering committees and expert groups. BSEC developed some important
mutually supplemented projects in the region.
Cooperation on the gradual liberalization of transportation is going on within the Memorandum
of Understanding on Facilitation of Road Transport of Goods in the BSEC Region (signed in
Kyiv in 2002). The work on the MoU was institutionalized – the Steering Committee on
Facilitation of Road Transport of Goods was established. The BSEC Permanent International
Secretariat (PERMIS) carries out the duty of its secretariat. This work is being done in a close
cooperation and with valuable support of the International Road Transport Union (IRU) and the
Union of the Road Transport Association in the BSEC region (BSEC-URTA).The Steering
Committee works on the issues of gradual liberalization of transport permit system, monitoring
of border waiting times, introduction of the International Vehicle Weight Certificate,
harmonization of charging policies etc.
Cooperation on the development of road infrastructure was established within the Memorandum
of Understanding for the Coordinated Development of the Black Sea Ring Highway (signed in
Belgrade on 19 April 2007). The work on the project was institutionalized – the Steering
Committee as a main driving force, and Joint Permanent Technical Secretariat were established.
Development of maritime infrastructure and links is under way within the Memorandum of
Understanding on the Development of the Motorways of the Sea at the BSEC Region (signed in
Belgrade on 19 April 2007). The Cooperation was also institutionalized - it is coordinated by the
Ad Hoc Working Group pertaining to this Memorandum of Understanding.
The projects also constitute regional contribution to the extension of Trans-European Networks
and the development of Euro-Asian transport links.In the meantime, parallel to its work on these
projects, BSEC, as a project-oriented organization, continue exploring new areas where it is
desirable and realistic to develop and deepen multilateral cooperation in a regional format in the
transport sphere, which carries particular prominence for the BSEC Organization. In this work
special attention is paid to cooperation with other international organizations such as UNECE,
161
UNDP, IRU, IRF and BSEC sectoral dialogue partners, BRASS, BASPA, BINSA and BSEC-
URTA.
BSEC has worked collaboratively with UNECE on issues related to transport facilitation.
TheCooperation Agreement between BSEC and UNECE, signed in 2001, aims at accelerating
thedevelopment of international transport infrastructure networks, transport and border-
crossingfacilitation, and also harmonizing safety and environment standards in the area of
transport.
http://www.bsec-organization.org/aoc/Transport/Pages/Information.aspx
162
II.1.13. TRACECA Intergovernmental Commission
The Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA) programme was launched at a
conference in Brussels in 1993 which brought together trade and transport ministers from the
original eight TRACECA countries (five Central Asian republics and three Caucasian republics).
Currently TRACECA members include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Romania, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan.
At the Brussels conference, it was agreed to implement a program of a European Union funded
technical assistance to develop a transport corridor on a west-east axis from Europe, across the
Black Sea, through the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea to Central Asia.
In 2000, an Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) was established to oversee the implementation
of the programme. The Commission’s executive body, the Permanent Secretariat (PS), created in
2001, has its headquarters in Baku and is since 2006 funded directly through contributions of the
TRACECA member countries.
In 2004 the Baku Initiative on Transport was launched involving all 1998 TRACECA MLA
signatory states as well as Belarus.
One of the first activities of this initiative was to set up four expert working groups to work out
recommendations on transport development in the fields of land transport (road / rail), aviation,
security, and infrastructure. These recommendations were presented at the Second Baku
Initiative Ministerial Conference and Fifth Annual Meeting of the IGC TRACECA in May 2006
which, in turn, approved the TRACECA long-term strategy till 2015.
The present Action Plan is based on the provisions of the strategy elaborated for the TRACECA
corridor region for the period up to 2015. The latter’s overall goal is to help deliver a sustainable,
efficient and integrated multi-modal transport system between the EU and the TRACECA region
but also among the TRACECA countries.
Currently the TRACECA countries are gradually implementing the IGC TRACECA Strategy for
development of the international transport Europe-Caucasus-Asia corridor for the period up to
2015, aimed at creation of a sustainable infrastructure chain ensuring multi-modal transport with
step-by-step integration of the corridor into the Trans-European Transport Networks (TENs).
164
II.1.14. Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO)
The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) is an intergovernmental organization
established in 1985 by Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey to promote economic, technical, and cultural
cooperation among the member states. In 1992, the Organization was expanded to include seven
new members, namely: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
The main goals of the ECO include sustainable economic development, economic liberalization
and privatization, mutually beneficial cooperation with regional and international organizations,
the removal of trade barriers, and the development of transport and communications
infrastructure.
The transport and communications sector, since the early years of ECO, is on the top of the
agenda. The ECO Directorate of Transport and Communications has played a significant role in
facilitatingECO Agreements and Declarations in the transport and communications field to foster
economiccooperation, integration and cohesiveness in the ECO region.
Key documents in this field are: the Quetta Plan of Action; the Istanbul Declaration (ECO Long
Term Perspectives); the Almaty Outline Plan for the Development of Transport Sector in the
ECO region; the Ashgabat Declaration of 1997; the Programme of Action for ECO Decade of
Transport and Communications; and the Transit Transport Framework Agreement.
The ECO transport sector hasachieved considerable progress in, for example, interconnecting
road and railway networks inCentral Asian Republics with Iran, Pakistan and Turkey, and in
international road transportamong all ECO countries via bilateral agreements and the
construction of missing links in theECO region.
166
II.1.16. The World Bank
The World Bank is an international institutionestablished in 1944 and providing financial and
technical assistance to developing countries. The World Bank Group is headquartered in
Washington, D.C. 10,000 employees work in more than 120 offices worldwide.
The World Bank Groupconsists of two development institutions, namely the International Bank
for Reconstruction andDevelopment (IBRD), focusing on middle income and creditworthy poor
countries, and the InternationalDevelopment Association (IDA), focusing on the poorest
countries. Besides them, the World Bank Group includes also and three other affiliated
development institutions.
The transport sector constitutes a significant part of the World Bank’s portfolio.World Bank
transport projects span all transport modes and operational environments: rail, road, aviation,
waterborne transport, urban transport, rural access, etc.
The World Bank’s strategy in the transport sector, and companion business plan for the next
three years (2016-18), aims to facilitate the movement of people, goods and ideas in developing
countries by focusing on mobility solutions that provide greater access, efficiency and safety, all
in a climate-friendly way.
World Bank (IBRD/IDA) transport commitments in fiscal year 2015 (FY15) amounted to
US$5.4 billion. Furthermore, in FY15, there were 197 active Bank projects with total net
commitments of US$41 billion, representing 21 percent of the Bank’s total lending portfolio.
In FY15, the International Finance Corporation (member of World Bank Group) committed $585
million in transportation and logistics, and mobilized another $253 million from third-party
investors. Overall, IFC has a $3 billion portfolio of transportation investments covering ports,
airports, railways, canals and other sectors.
Rural and inter-urban roads remain the largest sub-sector with 48 percent of lending in FY15
(US$2.6 billion). However, the transport sector has rebalanced its portfolio with more operations
in urban transport, road safety, aviation, ports, and railways, including projects that aim to
improve trade competitiveness. Urban transport is a growing business for the Bank, increasing its
financing share from 10 percent ($893 million) in FY11 to 20 percent (US$1.1 billion) in FY15.
According to the Infrastructure Strategy Update 2012 – 2015, in Asian region the World Bank
Group will focus on supporting countries to ensure sustainable development of sub-national level
roads to ensure good quality, all-year access and value for money in investments.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/overview#2
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINFRA/Resources/WB_InfraStrat_Brochure_EastAsiaPa
cific_2-16.pdf
167
II.1.17. Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation
(CAREC) Program
The Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Program is a partnership of 10
countries (Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, Pakistan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and six multilateral development partners (Asian
Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International
Monetary Fund, Islamic Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, and
World Bank) working to promote development through cooperation, leading to accelerated
economic growth and poverty reduction.
Asian Development Bank (ADB) serves as the CAREC Secretariat and takes the lead in
organizing institutional events, such as ministerial conferences, senior officials’ meetings, and
sector and sector coordinating committees’ meetings as well as liaising with partner governments
and institutions.
ADB is involved in all priority sectors of CAREC—transport, trade facilitation, trade policy, and
energy. Between 2001 and 2011, it has provided $5.1 billion in loans and grants in transport,
trade, and energy. It has also produced CAREC-related studies.
To guide the CAREC Program in the next 10 years, ministers of CAREC countries endorsed the
CAREC 2020: A Strategic Framework for the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation
Program 2011-2020 (CAREC 2020).
Transport is among the CAREC top priorities. The CAREC Transport and Trade Facilitation
Strategypresents a shared vision of transport and trade facilitation development across the region
to 2017, identifying three transport goals:
- establish competitive transport corridors across the CAREC region;
- facilitate efficient movement of people and goods across borders; and
- develop safe, people-friendly transport systems.
CAREC focuses investment and other activities on the development of six competitive transport
corridors that link north, south, east, and west through the pivot of Central Asia:
Corridor 1: Europe-East Asia;
Corridor 2: Mediterranean-East Asia;
Corridor 3: Russian Federation-Middle East and South Asia;
Corridor 4: Russian Federation-East Asia;
Corridor 5: East Asia-Middle East and South Asia;
Corridor 6: Europe-Middle East and South Asia.
The six CAREC corridors link the region's key economic hubs to each other, and connect the
landlocked CAREC countries to other Eurasian and global markets. Each corridor improves
168
access for CAREC countries to at least two large Eurasian markets; and the warm-water ports of
Karachi and Gwadar in Pakistan open up truly global trade opportunities.
Corridors are not final products, however: once a corridor is established, it must meet the needs
of its users. This means improving physical infrastructure is only part of the equation. It is also
necessary to ensure border-crossing times and costs as well as other transshipment operations are
completed as seamlessly as possible.
The Implementation Action Plan for the CAREC Transport and Trade Facilitation Strategy
presents an aggressive investment plan to upgrade all six transport corridors to international
standards by 2017.
CAREC 2020—the strategic framework for the CAREC Program, 2011–2020—lays out the next
phase of priority investments in transport infrastructure along the corridors. CAREC expects
additional investments over the coming decade to complete the infrastructure network and begin
the process of developing the transport corridors into logistics corridors and—ultimately—
economic corridors.
Figure *. CAREC corridors
http://www.carecprogram.org/index.php?page=carec-program
169
II.1.18. The Islamic Development Bank (IDB)
The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) is an international financial institution with headquarters
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and regional offices in Almaty (Kazakhstan), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia),
Rabat (Morocco) and Dakar (Senegal). IDB was established in 1973 to support the economic
development and social progress of its Member Countries.
In line with the strategic thrusts of the IDB, regional transport corridors continued to receive
high priority in IDB’s transport financing activities. In particular, IDB is financing numerous
projects across the CAREC area, where the IDB had assisted the countries in construction and
reconstruction of almost 1,300 km of motorways and 325 km of railways that are the part of the
CAREC road corridors.
Currently (2014 – 2016) the IDB is participating in the following projects in EATL region:
- three road projects of regional importance, two in Azerbaijan and one in Kyrgyz Republic thus
committing in total US$ 471 million;
- theAlternative road corridor North-South in Kyrgyz Republic;
- road reconstruction project in Uzbekistan from Guzar to Beyneu, which is the part of Uzbek
National Highway project and lies along the CAREC corridors;
- the construction of the road length Kulyab to Khalaikum in Tajikistan, which will open the new
road corridor to China.
While transport corridors are developing, the IDB pays a great attention to the trade facilitation
and removal of trade barriers. For this purpose the Bank via its frequent respective programs and
workshops encourages its member-countries to adopt the advanced examples of international
trade.
http://www.carecprogram.org/uploads/events/2015/029-14th-CAREC-Ministerial-
Conference/Key-Documents/Statements/2015-CAREC-MC-MI-Statement-IDB.pdf
http://www.isdb.org/irj/go/km/docs/documents/IDBDevelopments/Internet/English/IDB/CM/Pub
lications/39YearsInDevelopment.pdf
170
II.1.19. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Developmentwas established in 1991 in London
with the aim of promoting transition to market-oriented economies in the countries of Central
and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.Currently the EBRD has 63 members (61 countries, the
European Union and the European Investment Bank), with a total of 29 countries of operations
in central and eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus - and soon in north Africa.
Considering that transport is a key enabler of growth, providing the physical networks and
services upon which the economy depends for the movement of people and goods, the EBRD is
striving to develop safe, secure and sustainable transport systems, which balance economic,
environmental and social needs.
The EBRD priorities within the transport sector include:
- promoting market based transport. The EBRD works to improve the efficiency, market-
orientation and financial sustainability of the transport sector. This includes supporting
the development of the private market for transport services and increasing private sector
participation in the provision of transport infrastructure through concessions;
- developing sustainable transport. The EBRD is committed to supporting the development of
sustainable transport networks in the region. Climate change mitigation and adaptation,
integrated network development, pollution prevention, air quality and biodiversity protection,
economic inclusion and gender equality and road safety are all important sustainable transport
issues which we continue to address at the policy and project level;
- broadening activity within the sector. The Bank is committed to expanding the boundaries of
its activities in the transport sector to finance the needs of emerging sub-sectors. The need for
freight services is growing, including road freight, and the Bank aims to promote sustainable
development and reducing CO2 emissions given the potential of logistics operations to lower
energy consumption through optimized networks.
Since 1991, the EBRD has invested €14.2 billion in 280 projects in the transport sector,
including 47 per cent in roads, 33 per cent in the rail network, 14 per cent in port, intermodal and
logistics operations, as well as 6 per cent in the aviation sector.Among the projects, financed by
EBRD, are the following:
- the railway reform In Kazakhstan. After supporting the initial restructuring of the national
railways company KTZ, the Bank made several investments to help the company finance
increasingly advanced efficiency measures. The Bank also participated in a bond issuance, which
helped the company finance much-needed logistics infrastructure to increase cargo transit along
the trade route from China to Europe;
- participation in the AIG Silk Road Fund in Azerbaijan. AIG Silk Road Fund is a private equity
investment fund targeting Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan The project will provide equity finance to small and medium-sized private sector
enterprises and joint ventures operating in the countries of Central Asia;
- East-West road corridor project in Kazakhstan;
171
- the Eurasia Tunnel under the Bosphorus Straits in Turkey, which was the first PPP in the
country. A Turkish-Korean joint venture was selected through an international tender to build
and operate the tunnel.
http://www.ebrd.com/what-we-do/transport/overview.html
http://www.ebrd.com/news/2016/ebrd-at-25-transport.html
173
II.1.21. International Road Transport Union (IRU)
The International Road Transport Union (IRU) was founded in 1948 to represent the interests of
the international road transport industry. The goals of IRU are to ensure the mobility of people
and goods while improving the safety and environmental performance of road transport. The
IRU holds Euro–Asian Road Transport Conferences biennially to promote and revive the “Silk
Road” linking Europe and Asia.
In 2009 the New Eurasian Land Transport Initiative (NELTI) was implemented. The project
aims to encourage regular roadfreight shipments between Europe and China and to assist in
achieving the transit potentialparticularly of nations in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
The objectives of the project are to:
- contribute to the implementation of the UN Millennium Development Goals and of theAlmaty
Programme of Action for landlocked developing countries in order to developEurasian land
transport links;
- assist in the development of trade in landlocked countries and regions and to broadenaccess for
their goods to international markets;
- increase the contribution of road transport to international trade and
socioeconomicdevelopment
- offer alternative delivery routes to maritime shipments to assist businesses in
landlockedcountries.
NELTI consists of commercial deliveries of industrial and consumer goods across the Eurasian
landmass, performed by independent transport companies from Eurasian countries along five
different routes (see fig. **).
Figure *. NELTI routes
174
NELTI is developed in consequent phases.
In the course of Phase I of the project a series of successful demonstration road transport
caravans was undertaken in 2002-2007 (Lisbon-Vladivostok, Beijing-Brussels, and Black Sea
Ring Caravan). One of the objectives, along with solution of commercial and political tasks, was
also building up and adjusting mechanisms of logistic support and stimulating haulage, in the
longer run, of Chinese freights by road transport routes along the historic Great Silk Road.
Within the framework of Phase Two of NELTI (2009-2011), the development of the system of
regular road transport haulage between Asian and European countrieswas continued, with China
involved in this system. Certain measures were enforced in accordance with the provisions of
Memorandums of Understanding and regional agreements aimed to further the development of
Euro-Asian transport communications, remove the barriers therein, simplify the border crossing
procedures, harmonize the legal provisions in the transit countries, etc.
NELTI-3 was launched in June 2011to identify the main impediments and non-physical barriers
to international road transport within the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) region and
help governments implement the appropriate UN multilateral instruments to stimulate economic
growth by facilitating trade and international road transport.
In September 2012 IRU had launched NELTI-4 in cooperation with Arab Union of Land
Transport (AULT) in the Arab world.
One of the most important aspects of the NELTI project during all its phases is monitoring.
Monitored data collected en route by NELTI drivers - applying internationally recognized
UNESCAP methodolology for data collection - on road conditions, waiting times at border-
crossing points, quality of road infrastructure, administrative barriers etc., are subsequently
analyzed by the Dutch Transport Research Institute (NEA) to develop road maps identifying the
issues to be solved and the measures required to reduce the time and cost of road transport
haulage between China and Europe.
NELTI monitoring has unveiled a high competitive potential for the development of the NELTI
northern, central and southern routes. However, the data has also highlighted that 40 % of road
transport time along the routes of the Silk Road is lost at borders due to inappropriate border
crossing procedures which impede trade growth along the entire Eurasian landmass. In addition,
approximately 30% of the transport costs were due to unofficial payments, borne by the
hauliersen route and at border crossing points.
175
II.1.22. International Union of Railways (UIC)
UIC is the worldwide professional association representing the railway sector and promoting rail
transport. To enable UIC to effectively fulfil its mission, 3 levels have been defined for
international cooperation activities:
- strategic level: coordination with and between the 6 UIC Regions (represented by UIC
Regional Assemblies for Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Europe and Middle-East);
- technical/professional cooperation level structured around the following railway activities:
Passenger, Freight, Rail System – including infrastructure, rolling stock, operations – and
Fundamental Values including cross-sector activities such as Sustainable Development,
Research Coordination, Safety, Security, Expertise Development). Strategic priorities for
technical cooperation activities are set out by forums and platforms composed of member
representatives;
- support services level: Finance, Human Resources, Legal, Communications and Institutional
Relations.
UIC promotes intercontinental and transcontinental rail traffic and has a dedicated group of
experts dealing with this issue - the Global Team of Experts (GTE) Members of the group
represent rail and non-rail key stakeholders (railway undertakings, freight forwarders, rail
associations, potential customers, shipping lines and others). The GTE serves as a platform for
exchange among all stakeholders, and to initiate and steer projects creating the right framework
conditions for developing long-distance rail traffic.
Following the results of the study ICOMOD (project aimed at establishing the viability of a rail
link between Europe and Asia and at assessing the market size) and in the light of the
strengthening cooperation between UIC and other International Associations, the year 2012 was
aimed at reposi-tioning the UIC group. A gap analysis identified the need to continue market
oriented research activities. The GTE activities are now focused on the following issues:
- analyzing and generalizing information on technical compatibility and interoperability within
ITCs;
- summarizing the results of activities among international organizations and certain railway
operators aimed at improving transportation along ITCs;
- forecasting of freight and passenger transportation volumes, establishing a data base of freight
points of origin and destination as well as volumes structure;
- developing a marketing approach to improve the appeal of ITCs for freight owners and
forwarders, presenting the opportunities and prospects offered by ITCs at international forums.
http://www.uic.org/corridors#documents
Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR)
176
As a part of the “New Silk Road”intermodal East-West transport infrastructure initiative,
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Turkey agreed on creation of the Trans-Caspian
International Transport Route (TITR).
In the framework of the TITR project, a cargo train that launches from China will be able to
reach Europe in less than 14 days, which is the most competitive route in terms of transport time.
For instance, it takes around 15-19 days for a cargo train that departs from China and passes
through the Russian territories to reach Europe, and it takes more than a month for a cargo from
the Eastern China to arrive in Europe using the current maritime route. Therefore, the TITR
would have obvious advantages over the existing inland and maritime routes.
The agreement on the establishment of the Coordination Committee to develop the Trans-
Caspian International Transport Route was signed by the representatives of the national railway
companies from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Georgia, and the representatives of the ports of
Aktau and Baku during the 2nd International Transport and Logistics Business Forum “New Silk
Road” in November 2013. During the 5th meeting of the Coordination Committee on the
development of the TITR on October 20,2014 participants of the TITR project agreed to accept
the Turkish State Railways to the Coordinating Committee.
Currently, the regular meetings of the working group of the Coordination Committee are
attended by the heads of the JSC “NC Kazakhstan Temir Zholy”, the Turkish State Railways, the
JSC “Azerbaijan Rail-ways”, the JSC “Georgian Railways”, the JSC “NC Aktau International
Sea Trade Port”, the Baku International Sea TradePort, the JSC “Azerbaijan Caspian Ship-ping
Company” and the LLC “Batumi Sea Port”.
The most significant result of the TITR working group meeting was reached in Batumi on July
24, 2015, namely, in coordination with the Chinese transport company, Minsheng Logistics. The
parties managed to launch the first container train over the Trans-Caspian International Transport
Route. On July 28, 2015, the test cargo train departed from the Xinjiang province in China,
travelled along theShihezi-Dostyk-Aktau-Alyat-Keshla routethrough the territories of
Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, and arrived at the Baku International Trade Port complex, located in
the town of Alyat (around 30 miles south west of Baku).
The train carried caustic soda and consisted of 41 platforms and 82containers, weighing 20 tons
each. It traveled for 6 days and for more than 4,000kilometers, passing through the Kazakhport
of Aktau. Therefore, it was the first successful attempt to launch a cargo train from China to the
Caspian region through the Caspian Sea.
The test train showed the principle capability of the parties to reach an agreement on tariff policy
and on harmonized customs procedures providing a competitive route from Asia to Europe.
The second container train via the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route arrived in
Georgia on October 3, 2015. The train, consisting of 44 containers, departed from the Chinese
Xinjiang province, travelled on the Alashankou-Dostyk-Aktau-Alyat-Tbilisi route and arrived in
Georgia in eight days. The second test train showed that the organization of the container service
on the China-Kazakhstan-Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey route could really meet the expectations of
the TITR members.
It is expected that approximately 300,000-400,000 containers will be transported via the Trans-
Caspian International Transport Route by 2020ensuring an average speed of up to 1,100km a
day. Participants predict that the TITR will initially be able to transport up to5.5 million tons of
cargo annually, increasing gto 13.5 million tons per year by 2020.
177
During the meeting in Baku in January2015, the Coordination Committee reached an agreement
on the adoption of measures for utilizing the new Zhezkazgan - Beineurailway lines and on the
capacity of Kazakhstan's Aktau and Azerbaijan’s Baku seaports in order to create favorable tariff
conditions.
Despite the agreements, there remains one important missing part of the TITR, namely, the 826-
kilometer Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) railway connection. Opening of the BTK railway with an
annual carrying capacity of 6.5 million tons by the end of the year with further integration with
the “Marmaray” rail project under the Bosporus Strait will allow freight trains to travel between
Europe and Asia along the fully launched Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.
However, even if all parts of the TITR corridor are linked together, there will still be a necessity
to increase the transit capacity of the existing infrastructural facilities. For instance, the
“Kazakhstan Temir Zholy” transport company is about to finish the expansion works in the
Aktau port, which will allow to put in operation anew grain terminal with a capacity of
1.5million tons and two additional dry-cargo terminals with a total capacity of 1.5 million tons.
Moreover, two universal ferries will be purchased within the framework of implementation of
the new state program. Herewith, the port capacity will increase from 16.8 million tons to 21
million tons per year. In addition, Azerbaijan is also upgrading its maritime infrastructure. In
accordance with the plans for modernization of the Caspian Sea infrastructure, Azerbaijani
officials made a decision to launch a new port complex in Alyat as part of the Baku seaport. The
first ferry terminal in Alyat with transshipment volume of 10 million tons of cargo per year was
opened in 2014. At the final stage of the construction works, the Alyat port complex is expected
to have an annual transport capacity of up to 25 million tons. In conclusion, it should be noted
that the sharp drop in oil prices has increased the significance of benefits of freight
transportation, especially for countries such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Therefore,
establishing the Trans-Caspian International Corridor should be considered as a mutually
beneficial project, which could potentially pave the way to build new multimodal transportation
hubs in Eurasia.
Source: Eurasian Research Institute Weekly e-bulletin 06.10.2015-12.10.2015 • No: 36/
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN INTERNATIONALTRANSPORT ROUTE.
179
II.2. Most important national level programmes and projects
Azerbaijan Republic
In 2015, the Azerbaijani Railways carried 17.09 million tons of goods, including 13 million tons
carried as international operations7. Special attention is paid to the modernisation of the railway
infrastructure in section Bejuk-Kjasik –Ganja. Baku – Sumgait section was reconstructed.
In 2015, two container block trains China – Kazakhstan – Azerbaijan – Georgia and China –
Kazakhstan – Russia –Azerbaijan – Georgia were put into service.
2838 new freight wagons, 4 new electric multiple units and 8 new diesel locomotives were
purchased.
Republic of Belarus
In 2015, the volume of cargo transportation on the Belarus Railway made up 131.4 million tons
of goods8. The number of regular container block trains running between China and West Europe
has been steadily grown. In 2015 8 trains run between Belarus and Germany, Poland, Czech
Republic and Lithuania.
Due to the improvement of train handling procedures, the time of cargo trains stops at the Brest
border crossing point reduced from 36 to 10 hours with transshipment and to 6 hours without
transshipment.
The Belarus Railways are completely opened for transportation of freight in all directions using
the CIM/SMGS consignment note. During 2015 more than 29 thousands TEUs run under such a
consignment note.
In 2015, as part of development of the railway infrastructure, the projects: “Extension of the
receiving-departure lines of Orsha-Centralnaya railway station and Sitnitsa railway station” and
“Development of the second stage of the Project “Electrification of the 86 km of Gomel –
Zhlobin section” were successfully completed. In 2015, 279 new freight wagons were purchased.
7 Report on the activities of the Organisation for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD) in 2015. Warsaw, 2016 8 Report on the activities of the Organisation for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD) in 2015. Warsaw, 2016
180
Bulgaria
In 2015, the Bulgarian Railways continued reconstruction and modernisation of OSJD Railway
Corridor No. 6, and modernised Septemvri – Plovdiv and Plovdiv – Burgas sections. Now,
Plovdiv intermodal terminal is under construction.
In 2015, the National Railway Infrastructure Company (NRIC) entered the TIS (the Train
Information System) of the International Organisation of Rail Infrastructure Managers on a
permanent basis; that enables Bulgarian and foreign operators to monitor their international
trains in real-time. Besides, the train information system makes it possible to monitor train
delays at the border crossing points and causes thereof.
China
In 2015, the Chinese Railways carried 2.71 billion tons of cargo and 2.53 billion passengers.
9531 km of new railway lines were put in operation, of which 3306 km are high-speed ones.
The Chinese Railways have introduced the principle of independent administrative and economic
functions. In order to promote the innovative structural systems and acceleration of the railway
construction, measures were developed aimed at:
- further transformation of the governmental functions;
- facilitation of the administrative procedures;
- consolidation of the railway transport control and management;
- promotion of railway tariff reform;
- coordination of further railway transport development.
Kyrgyz Republic
The Kyrgyz Railway has modernized above 150 km of railway lines of the northern and southern
sections with the laying of new reinforced concrete and timber sleepers for 2011-2015 years. Six
new modern Evolution fifth generation diesel locomotives TE33A were put in service. Two car-
repair plants were established for the purpose of modernisation and repairs of freight wagons and
passenger coaches that allows extending the life of wagons.
Fibre-optic communication line is laid at Lugovaya – Bishkek – Rybachye section.
The strategic projects of construction North – South trunk railways are being successfully
implemented as part of the Russia –Kazakhstan – Kyrgyzstan – Tajikistan project and China –
Kyrgyzstan project.
181
Latvia
In 2015, the Latvian Railway carried 55.6 million tons of goods, of which 53.9 million tons –
internationally.
The new Bolderāja-2 – Krievu railway line was put in service, with the construction of new
Bolderāja -2 railway station.
In 2015, 47.2 km of railway lines were modernized and 93.8 km were reconstructed. The second
56 km track at Skrīveri – Krustpils section was opened.
Lithuania
In 2015, the Lithuanian Railways carried 48.1 million tons of goods.
1,435 mm gauge railway line of 115.2 km from the state border with Poland to Kaunas railway
station was put in service as a result of implementation of the project “Rail Baltic”.
The projects of modernisation of the railway infrastructure of OSJD corridor No. 9 (Kena –
Vilnius – Siauliai – Klaipeda), construction of the second track on Kyviskes – Valciunai section,
as well as on Pavenciai – Raudėnui, Telšiai – Dusaikai and Kūlupėnai – Kretinga sections were
successfully completed.
As a result of modernisation of 1,520 mm gauge infrastructure, 53.7 km of new lines and 4
bridges have been constructed and 44.1 km of the existing tracks have been reconstructed.
A computer-based system of commercial inspection of trains and wagons was installed at Kena
and Kibartai border stations, as a result of which the duration of commercial inspection of trains
was significantly reduced and made more exact, with the recording of all cases of incorrect
loading and load securing, technical and commercial condition of wagons and coaches and cargo
shortage in case theft.
Republic of Moldova
In 2015, the Moldova Railway spent more than 1.5 million US Dollars for rehabilitation project
and entered into a loan agreement with the European Bank for purchase of 10 new main-line
locomotives, modernisation of locomotive depots, and recovery of the railway infrastructure for
100 million Euros in aggregate.
The Railway of Moldova State Enterprise and the State Administration for Railway Transport of
Ukraine signed an Agreement for electronic data exchange in the international freight transport.
A significant progress is availability of all types of control (border control, customs check,
182
sanitary inspection, veterinary inspection, etc.) on the principle of “the single window” at all
railway border stations of Moldova.
Approximately 25 thousands consignments were carried over the territory of the Republic of
Moldova using the CIM/SMGS consignment note in 2015.
Mongolia
In 2015, the volume of freight transit through the Ulan-Bator Railway increased by 101.38%.
Two new container lines Chengdu (PRC) – UBZD – RZD – Łódź (Poland), Zhengzhou (PRC) –
UBZD – RZD – Duisburg (Germany) were opened.
A new 24.5 km railway line for iron ore transportation was put in operation. Three new remote
control crossing loops were constructed and put into operation.
Annex No. 9 to the International Convention on Harmonisation of Frontier Controls of Goods is
successfully implemented, that is witnessed by reduction by 45 minutes of the time of border
control of freight trains between Russia and Mongolia.
Fig. ** Transit rail corridors in Mongolia
Time of railway transit via territory of Mongolia (fig **):
- Corridor Sukhbaatar – Zamiin-Uud 30 hours;
- Corridor Zamiin-Uud - Sukhbaatar 36 hours.
183
Fig **. Time of railway transit via territory of Mongolia, hours
Poland
In 2015, the Polish Railways (PKP Cargo JSC) carried 117.59 million tons of goods, including
48.26 million tons on international routes. Over 800 km of railway lines were modernised due to
which the train en route time in Trójmiasto – Wroclaw, Poznan – Krakow, Warsaw – Bielsko-
Biala, Olsztyn – Bydgoszcz sections significantly reduced.
The PKP Cargo JSC has been effectively developed the container terminals at Poznan-Franovo
station in Poland (owned by PKP Cargo), as well as in Czech Ostrava- Paskov (a terminal owned
by Advanced World Transport, an affiliate of PKP Cargo Group).
The PKP Cargo JSC actively participates in the stimulation of the railway traffic from China to
West and South Europe as part of the New Silk Road (to more than 10 trips weekly).
The PKP Cargo JSC has purchased 15 Siemens Vectron multisystem freight locomotives for
service on the trans-border lines. For the purposes of strengthening of the cargo protection,
security improvement and train monitoring, unmanned aerial vehicles are now used, as a result
of which losses have been reduced almost by 60%.
Russian Federation
The cargo turnover of the Russian Railways JSC made up 2.302.738 million tons (100.3%), of
which 1.304.478 million tons (100.7% to 2014) – on the international routes. 25 new container
train lines: Duisburg – Korla, Värtsilä –Korla, Sergeli – Nakhodka, Hefei – Hamburg,
Nakhodka-Vostochnaya – Khovrino, Koity – Novorossiysk, etc., were put into operation.
In 2015, 3.4 km of new railway lines were put into operation. Reconstruction of Babaevo station
of the Oktyabrskaya Railway and construction of new Chernyshevskoye border station of the
Kaliningradskaya Railway were successfully completed.
184
Technical upgrading of Petushki – Nizhni Novgorod section of the Gorkovskaya Railway was in
progress. Tonnelnaya station of the Northern Caucasian Railway, Cherepovets-II station of the
Northern Railway, Volkhovstroy-I station of the Oktyabrskaya Railway, Kinel stations of the
Kuybyshevskaya Railway, Ekaterinburg-Sortirovochnaya station of the Sverdlovskaya Railway
are under reconstruction.
500 new locomotives and 240 rolling stock units were purchased.
The development of market relations and competition in the freight wagon operations
encouraged investments in the construction and modernisation of the carriage rolling stock:
private investments of over 10 billion US Dollars were attracted, as a result of which the freight
car fleet was significantly renovated and the total number of wagons reached 1 million 124
thousand units.
Republic of Tajikistan
The Rohi Ohani Tojikiston State Unitary Enterprise (Tajik Railway) carried 6.1 million tons of
goods in 2015.
The construction of the new Vahdat – Yavan railway is in progress; the railway lines at Rahaty –
Vahdat – Elok and Kurgantube – Yavan sections are being modernized; the construction of 40.7
km Vahdat – Yavan section is expected to be completed in 2016, on the occasion of the 25th
anniversary of independence of Tajikistan.
Romania
In 2015, the Romanian Railways carried 23.821 million tons of goods (103% to the previous
year level). CFR-Marfa – Romanian Freight Operator - carried 19922 operations with the
unified CIM/SMGS consignment note.
The railway lines Câmpina – Predeal, Bucharest – Braşov, Curtici – Simeria, Braşov – Simeria
were actively modernized to cause train running at the maximum speed of 160 km/h.
16 railway stations: Giurgiu, Slatina, Bistriţa Nord, Botoşani, Vaslui and other, have been
modernised.
185
Republic of Uzbekistan
In 2015, the freight traffic on the Uzbek Railways made 81.8 million tons.
The first stage of electrification of 140.8 km Marakand – Karshi railway section was successfully
completed. 55 locomotives and 1258 freight wagons were successfully modernised, 11 new
freight electric locomotives, 650 freight wagons were delivered.
Ukraine
The Ukrainian Railway was effectively involved in the establishment of new container train
lines: European countries – Ukraine (Chop), Batevo/Izov – Ilyichyevsk-Paromnaya – Georgia
(Poti/ Batumi – Gardabani) – Azerbaijan – (Bejuk- Kjasik – Alyat) – Kazakhstan (Aktau-Port –
Dostyk) – China through ferry crossing Ilyichyevsk – Poti/Batumi and Alyat – Aktau – Aktau-
Port.
Operation on the border stations and checkpoints is now based on the principle of the “single
window”, when all public control services are accessible.
The transport infrastructure of the international transport was actively developed, the amount of
works totaled to 650.47 million grivnas.
In 2015, 76128 carriage operations were made under the unified CIM/SMGS consignment note
that is by 10% more than in 2014.
186
II.3. Container block-trains in the EATL trade-
II.3.1. Block trains role in the Euro-Asian logistics
In 2015, The railways of the following countries: Belarus, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania,
Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, Poland, Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and other countries
successfully continued to create new, container routes, thus having increased the number of
container block trains running on the railways of OSJD member countries up to 280, of which
100 run on the regular basis.
Within the framework of OSJD activity on “Organisation of large-scale container traffic between
Europe and Asia” the following works have been performed:
In 2015 815 container block trains were organised in the direction of China – Europe – China, of
which from China to the countries of Europe - 550 trains, and 265 trains back (according to the
information of the Chinese Railways).
For the past few years the number of regular freight trains running between China and Western
Europe has been steadily growing, as more and more wide range of consignors begins to
perceive railways as a real alternative to the sea and air traffic.
Nowadays eight container trains have been running in the traffic China – Western Europe –
China through the Byelorussian Railway in the direction of Germany, Poland, Czech Republic
and Lithuania along the following routes:
- China – Poland (Chengdu – Lodz);
- China – Germany (Zhengzhou – Hamburg);
- “New Silk Way” China – Germany (Chongqing – Duisburg);
- “BMW” Germany – China (Leipzig – Shenyang);
- “Ford” Germany – China (Duisburg – Chongqing);
- China – Germany (Wuhan – Hamburg);
- China – Spain (Yiwu – Madrid).
The running frequency of container trains from China to Europe has already reached 4 times a
week, and once a week – in backward direction.
Travel time of container block trains through the Byelorussian Railway from the station Krasnoje
(state border with Russia) to Brest is less than 12 hours, with an average speed, respectively, of
1400 km/day and with the minimum waiting time at stations.
Following the results of work for 2015 positive dynamics of container traffic growth between
China – Europe – China have been reached of up to 28.6 thousand containers in TEU (growth by
1.9 times from 2014).
187
In 2015 1269 container trains proceeded through the network of the Railway of Kazakhstan in
the transit traffic; the number of container trains increased by 255 trains as compared to 2014
(growth by 25%), incl. 581 trains China – Europe – China - grown by 327 trains (or by 2.2
times).
Container trains have proceeded in transit through Kazakhstan along the following main routes:
- Chengdu (China) – Lodz (Poland) - 61 trains (+16 trains against 2014, have been running since
19 December 2012);
- Zhengzhou (China) – Hamburg (Germany) - 49 trains (-22 trains against 2014, have been
running since 17 July 2013);
- Chongqing (China) – Duisburg (Germany) - 146 trains (+55 trains against 2014, have been
running since 19 March 2011);
- Wuhan (China) – Pardubice (Czech Republic) - 23 trains (+7 trains against 2014, have been
running since 5 June 2014);
- Wuhan (China) – Hamburg (Germany) - 62 trains (+61 trains against 2014, have been running
since December 2014);
- Yiwu (China) – Madrid (Spain) - 17 trains (+16 trains against 2014, have been running since 8
December 2014);
- Hefei (China) – Hamburg (Germany) - 3 trains (a new route);
- Lanzhou (China) – Hamburg (Germany) - 1 train (a new route);
- Putyan (China) – Terespol (Poland) - 1 train (a new route);
- Duisburg (Germany) – Chongqing (China) - 118 trains (+99 trains against 2014, have been
running since March 2013);
- Hamburg (Germany) – Zhengzhou (China) - 32 trains (+24 trains against 2014, have been
running since September 2014);
- Hamburg (Germany) – Wuhan (China) - 15 trains (+15 trains against 2014, have been running
since December, 2014);
- Lodz (Poland) – Chensyan (China) - 26 trains (a new route);
- Madrid (Spain) – Yiwu (China) - 2 trains (+2 trains against 2014, was organised in December
2014);
- Kotka (Finland) in the direction of China - 7 trains (a new route);
- Hamburg (Germany) – Lanzhou (China) - 32 trains (a new route).
Besides, on 28 July 2015 the first demonstration container train “Nomad Express” was launched
through the Trans-Caspian international transport route with participation of railway and sea
transport/ferry operators along the route of Shikhezi (China) – Dostyk (Kazakhstan) – Aktau Port
(Kazakhstan) – Kishly (Azerbaijan).
188
On 29 November 2015 the second container train “Nomad Express” set off along the route
Lianyungang (China) – Dostyk – Aktau-Port (Kazakhstan) – Baku (Port Alyat) (Azerbaijan) –
Uzlovaya/Poti (Georgia) – Istanbul (Turkey) including the section of Poti – Istanbul with the
delivery by road.
According to the Lithuanian Railways JSC (LG) a Hoptrans Italy Express container train was
organized in April 2015 in the direction of Lithuania – Poland – Czech Republic – Austria –
Italy. The Hoptrans Italy Express container train represents the first innovative logistic project
connecting the Baltic Sea region to the southern part of Europe (Italy). The project has been
implemented by the Hoptrans Projects CJSC in cooperation with Italian and Polish partners. In
April 2015 along the route of Sestokai (Lithuania) – Piadena (Italy) – Sestokai (Lithuania) two
container trains were launched. Duration of containers delivery has averaged 12 days. The
container train has transported 72 loaded containers of 45 feet long. The planned frequency of
train running is two times a month, further on – once a week.
Since the end of 2014 and till April 2015 the Ulan-Bator Railway JSC (UBZD JSC) together
with the railways of the People’s Republic of China, Russia, Belarus, Poland and Germany has
organised successfully the runs of 18 transit container trains through the territory of Mongolia in
the traffic Asia – Europe – Asia in the following directions:
- from Germany to China along the route of Hamburg – Brest – Naushki – Ulan Bator – Zamyn-
Uud – Erlian – Zhengzhou (3 trains);
- from China to Poland along the route of Chengdu – Erlian – Zamyn-Uud – Sukhe-Bator –
Naushki – Brest – Lodz (6 trains);
- from China to Germany along the route Zhengzhou – Erlian – Zamyn-Uud – Sukhe-Bator –
Naushki – Brest –Hamburg (9 trains).
At present negotiations are underway aimed at increasing the number of container trains running
both in transit, and in other relations.
According to the Ukrainian Railway PJSC transportation of containers as a part of container
trains has constituted 27% of the total amount of containers carried through the territory of
Ukraine.
For all container trains technical and technological conditions of their operation have been
worked out, as well as reduced tariffs for the transportation of goods by the specified trains have
been established.
To attract sufficient volumes of container cargoes to be transported by the “Viking” and “Zubr”
trains the project participants (railway administrations of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia,
Estonia, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria) have prolonged tariff rates for 2015 which were in
effect throughout 2014.
The train schedule for the “Viking” and “Zubr” trains for 2015/2016 has been worked out
according to the time provided for in it the train can run on the daily basis. Frequency of their
running has been also established: three times a week for departing of the train from the Black
Sea region.
In order to improve the train organisation of the “Viking” combined transport and to expand the
geography of its operation a few new participants have joined the project in May 2014: National
189
Society of Railway Cargo Transportation of Romania “CFR Marfa”, and in March 2015 –
Georgian Railway JSC.
Container train traffic has been also organised along the route Romania (Dorneşti) – Ukraine
(Vadul Siret – Zernovo) – Russia (Tolyatti) for the transportation of car accessories and spare
parts.
Container train has been successfully performed along the route Slovakia (Kosice) – Ukraine
(Uzhgorod – Zernovo) – Russia (Perspektivnaya). Car and vehicle accessories are transported by
this train.
Along with the trains running in the specified routes, traffic has been organised with large
containers to cut the time of goods delivery which arrive into the territory of Ukraine through the
Black-Sea ports. Flexible policy is pursued in regard to the departure of the trains: they are
sorted and depart upon the arrival of containers in ports.
Moreover, since 2015 Ukrzaliznytsia PJSC have been working towards organising container
train traffic along the following route: countries of Europe – Ilyichyevsk-ferry (Ukraine) –
Batumi (Georgia) – Bejuk-Kjasik – Buck (Azerbaijan) – Aktau-Port – Dostyk (Kazakhstan) –
China through the ferry crossings Ilyichyevsk – Batumi and Alyat – Aktau-Port. Use of this
transport route’s potential will make it possible to attract additional volumes of container traffic
between EU Member States and the countries of Caucasus region, Central Asia and China.
According to the Azerbaijani Railways CJSC, dynamic wagon weighbridges have been installed
at the border stations of Bejuk-Kjasik and Yalama by the customs authorities, and X-ray wagon
inspection equipment has been installed at Yalama station by the border guard.
Table N1. – List of container trains and contrailer traffic on the railways of OSJD Member
Countries (as of 16.10.2015)9
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Byelorussian Railway (BC)
1022/1021 Russia – Lithuania – Belarus – Russia
(Kaliningrad – Kybartai – Gudogaj – Krassnoje – Kunzevo-
2 / Moscow-Tov.-Smolenskaja / Kupavna)
Container on request
1025/1026 China – Russia – Belarus
(Zabaikalsk – Krassnoje – Brest)
Container on request
1027/1028 Russia – Belarus
(Nakhodka / Nakhodka-Wost. – Krassnoje – Brest)
Container on request
1037/1038 China – Russia – Belarus – European Countries
(Zabaikalsk – Krassnoje – Brest – Malaszewicze)
Container on request
1039/1040 Russia – Belarus – European Countries
(Zabaikalsk / Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Krassnoje –
Brest – Malaszewicze)
Container on request
1062/1061 European Countries – Belarus – Russia
(Bruzgi – Krassnoje – Nowoijerusalimskaja)
Container on request
1064/1063 France – Poland – Belarus – Russia
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Vorotinsk)
Container on request
1066/1065
“East Wind”
Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – / Kunzevo-2)
Container on request
1068/1067 Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Moscow-Tov. /
Container on request
9 Information on container trains operating with regular itineraries between Europe and Asia. Transmitted by the Organization for
Cooperation between Railways (OSJD). Informal document WP.5/GE.2 (2015) No. 3/Rev.1, 17 May 2016
190
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Kunzevo-2 / Silikatnaja)
1070/1069 Czech Republic / Slovakia – Poland – Belarus – Russia –
Kazakhstan
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 –
Zashchita)
Container on request
1072/1071 Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Brest – Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 – Kostonaj)
Container on request
1074/1073 Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Nakhodka-Wost.)
Container on request
1076/1075 Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan –
China
(Berlin / Duisburg / Hamburg – Malaszewicze – Brest –
Krassnoje – Iljezk-1 – Almaty-1 – Dostyk / Altynkol –
Chongqing / Zhengzhou)
Poland – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan – China
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Iljezk-1 – Dostyk –
Chengdu)
Container on request
1078/1077
“Kazakhstan
Vector”
Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Semiglavy Mar –
Arys-1)
Container on request
1080/1079 Belarus – Russia
(Brest – Krassnoje – Kaluga-1 / Perspektivnaja)
Container on request
1082/1081 Belarus – Russia
(Brest – Krassnoje – Kaluga-1 / Perspektivnaja)
Container on request
1084/1083 Poland – Belarus – Russia
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Tikhonovo /
Silikatnaja)
Container on request
1086/1085
“Mongolian
Vector”
Belarus – Russia – Mongolia
(Brest – Krassnoje – Nauschki) Container on request
1088/1087 Belarus – Russia
(Brest – Krassnoje – Kaluga-1 / Perspektivnaja) Container on request
1090/1089 Belarus – Russia
(Brest – Krassnoje – Kostarikha / Nizhny Novgorod-
Avtozavod)
Container on request
1096/1095 Belarus – Russia
(Brest – Krassnoje – Nizhny Novgorod-Avtozavod) Container on request
1219/1220
“Merkurij” Lithuania – Belarus – Russia
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj – Krassnoje –
Kunzevo-2 / Moscow-Tov.-Smolenskaja / Kresty /
Silikatnaja / Severnaja)
Container on request
1221/1222
«Saule 2» Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan –
Afghanistan
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj – Krassnoje –
Semiglavy Mar – Karakalpak – Galaba)
Container on request
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj – Krassnoje –
Semiglavy Mar – Karakalpakstan – Ulugbek)
Container on request
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj – Krassnoje –
Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe / Almaty-1)
Container on request
1226/1225
“Baltic-
Wind”
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Paneriai / Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj –
Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 – Kostonaj)
Container on request
1253/1254
New Silk
Way
China – Kazakhstan – Russia – Ukraine – Slovakia /
Hungary
(Dostyk / Altynkol – Iletsk-I – Zernovo – Chop – Dobra /
Chop, Batevo – Budapest)
Container on request
191
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
1259/1260
“Saule” Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus – Lithuania
(Zhinischke – Semiglavy Mar – Zakopyt׳e – Gudogaj –
Klaipeda)
Container on request
China – Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus – Lithuania –
European Countries
(Dostyk – Iljezk-1 – Krassnoje – Gudogaj – Draugiste (Port
Klaipeda) / Šestokai )
Container on request
1260/1259
“Saule-1”
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) / Šestokai – Gudogaj –
Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 – Almaty-1)
Container on request
1263/1264 Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus
(Zhinischke – Semiglavy Mar – Zakopyt’e – Brest)
Container on request
1401/1402
“Zubr”
Estonia – Latvia – Belarus – Ukraine – Moldova
(Ülemiste / Muuga – Valga – Bigossowo – Berezhest –
Iljichovsk / Iljichovsk-Paromnaja / Odessa-Port / Mogilev-
Podolski – Oknica)
Container on request
1421/1422 Russia – Belarus – Lithuania – Russia
(Griwno – Krassnoje – Gudogaj – Kybartai – Lesnoje-
Nowoje)
Container on request
1423/1424 Russia – Belarus – Lithuania – Russia
(Griwno – Krassnoje – Gudogaj – Kybartai – Lesnoje-
Nowoje)
Container on request
1425/1426 Russia – Belarus – Lithuania – Russia
(Akulowo / Griwno – Krassnoje – Gudogaj – Kybartai –
Lesnoje-Nowoje)
Container on request
1427/1428 Poland – Belarus – Russia
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Michnevo) Container on request
1429/1430
“Viking”
Ukraine – Belarus – Lithuania (Iljichovsk /Iljichovsk-
Paromnaja / Odessa-Port – Berezhest – Gudogaj –
Draugiste (Port Klaipeda))
Container and
contrailer train
daily
Moldova – Ukraine – Belarus – Lithuania
(Oknica – Mogilev-Podolski / Iljichovsk / Iljichovsk-
Paromnaja / Odessa-Port – Berezhest – Gudogaj –
Draugiste (Port Klaipeda))
Container and
contrailer train
daily
aioamo – Moldova – Ukraine – Belarus – Lithuania
anean (– Mogilev-Podolski – Berezhest – Gudogaj –
Draugiste (Port Klaipeda))
Container and
contrailer train
daily
Bulgaria – Ukraine – Belarus – Lithuania
(Iljichovsk-Paromnaja – Berezhest – Gudogaj – Draugiste
(Port Klaipeda))
Container and
contrailer train
daily
1435/1436
«Neman»
Lithuania – Belarus
(Kaunas – Gudogaj – Koliadichi)
Container and
contrailer train
on request
Holding „Bulgarian State Railways“ (Holding BDZ)
40770 Tekirdağ (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Serbia – Hungary – Vienna
(Austria)
Container 5 times a week
40773 Vienna (Austria) – Hungary – Serbia – Bulgaria – Tekirdağ
(Turkey)
Container once a week
40781 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Bulgaria – Cerkezköy
(Turkey)
Container on request
40782 Cerkezköy (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Romania – Sopron
(Hungary)
Container on request
40783 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Bulgaria – Cerkezköy
(Turkey)
Container on request
40784 Cerkezköy (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Romania – Sopron
(Hungary)
Container on request
40785 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Bulgaria – Cerkezköy
(Turkey)
Container on request
192
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
40774 Cerkezköy (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Serbia – Sopron
(Hungary)
Container on request
40775 Sopron (Hungary) – Serbia – Bulgaria – Cerkezköy
(Turkey)
Container on request
40776 Cerkezköy (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Serbia – Sopron
(Hungary)
Container once a week
40777 Sopron (Hungary) – Serbia – Bulgaria – Cerkezköy
(Turkey)
Container on request
40779 Sopron (Hungary) – Serbia – Bulgaria – Cerkezköy
(Turkey)
Container on request
40820 Halkali (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Serbia – Croatia – Ljubljana
(Slovenia)
Container on request
40821 Ljubljana (Slovenia) – Croatia – Serbia – Bulgaria –
Halkali (Turkey)
Container on request
41520 Halkali (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Dornesti (Romania) Container once a week
41521 Dornesti (Romania) – Bulgaria – Halkali (Turkey) Container once a week
40834 Tekirdağ (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Serbia – Curtici (Romania) Container on request
40835 Curtici (Romania) – Serbia – Bulgaria – Tekirdağ (Turkey) Container on request
40838 Halkali (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Serbia – Hungary –
Dunajska Streda(Slovakia) Container 7 times a week
40839 Dunajska Streda(Slovakia) – Hungary – Serbia – Bulgaria –
Halkali (Turkey) Container 7 times a week
40860 Sindos (Greece) – Bulgaria – Romania – Sopron (Hungary) Container on request
40861 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Bulgaria – Sindos (Greece) Container on request
40862 Thessaloniki (Greece) – Bulgaria – Romania – Sopron
(Hungary)
Container on request
40863 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Bulgaria – Thessaloniki
(Greece)
Container on request
41378 Stamboliyski (Bulgaria) – Serbia – Hungary – Zeltweg
(Austria)
Container on request
41379 Zeltweg (Austria) – Hungary – Serbia – Stambolijski
(Bulgaria)
Container on request
41400 Warna (Bulgaria) – Romania – Sopron (Hungary) Container on request
41401 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Warna (Bulgaria) Container on request
41500 Thessaloniki (Greece) – Bulgaria – Ploiesti (Romania) Container on request
41501 Ploiesti (Romania) – Bulgaria – Thessaloniki (Greece) Container on request
41503 Kjazhna (Romania) – Bulgaria – Sindos (Greece) Container on request
41504 Triasio (Greece) – Bulgaria – Curticii (Romania) Container on request
41505 Curticii (Romania) – Bulgaria – Triasio (Greece) Container on request
41530 Halkali (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Curticii (Romania) Container on request
41531 Curticii (Romania) – Bulgaria – Halkali (Turkey) Container on request
41532 Halkali (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Curticii (Romania) Container on request
41533 Curticii (Romania) – Bulgaria – Halkali (Turkey) Container on request
41740 Plovdiv (Bulgaria) – Serbia – Curticii (Romania) Container on request
42500 Sofia (Bulgaria) – Curticii (Romania) Container on request
42501 Curticii (Romania) – Sofia (Bulgaria) Container on request
42502 Plovdiv (Bulgaria) – Curticii (Romania) Container on request
42503 Curticii (Romania) – Plovdiv (Bulgaria) Container on request
42504 Stara Zagora(Bulgaria) – Curticii (Romania) Container on request
42505 Curticii (Romania) – Stara Zagora(Bulgaria) Container on request
46880 Halkali (Turkey) – Bulgaria – Romania – Sopron
(Hungary)
Container on request
46881 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Bulgaria – Halkali
(Turkey)
Container on request
46961 Sopron (Hungary) – Romania – Bulgaria – Thessaloniki
(Greece)
Container on request
48120 Lüleburgaz (Turkey) – Vetovo (Bulgaria) Container 3 times a week
48121 Vetovo (Bulgaria) – Lüleburgaz (Turkey) Container 3 times a week
193
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Hungarian State Railway CJSC (MAV CJSC)
40600 Tekirdag (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary)
– Köln (Germany)
Container 3 times a week
40601 Köln (Germany) – Györ (Hungary) – Kelebia (Hungary) Container 3 times a week
40602 Tekirdag (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary)
– Köln (Germany)
Container 3 times a week
40603 Köln (Germany) – Györ (Hungary) – Kelebia (Hungary) Container 3 times a week
40633 Vienna (Austria) – Györ (Hungary) – Kelebia (Hungary) –
Halkali (Turkey)
Container 3 times a week
40634 Halkali (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary) –
Vienna (Austria)
Container 3 times a week
40664 Cerkezköy (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ-Rendez
(Hungary) – Sopron-Rendez (Hungary)
Container 3 times a week
40665 Ulm (Germany) – Györ-Rendez (Hungary) – Kelebia
(Hungary) – Cerkezköy (Turkey)
Container 3 times a week
40764 Thessaloniki (Griechenland) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ
(Hungary) – Vienna (Austria)
Container 3 times a week
40765 Sopron-Rendez (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary) – Kelebia
(Hungary) – Thessaloniki (Griechenland)
Container 3 times a week
40770 Halkali (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary) –
Sopron-Rendez (Hungary)
Container 3 times a week
40772 Hisar (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary) –
Sopron-Rendez (Hungary)
Container 3 times a week
40773 Sopron-Rendez (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary) – Kelebia
(Hungary) – Halkali (Turkey)
Container 3 times a week
40776 Halkali (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Györ (Hungary) –
Sopron-Rendez (Hungary)
Container 3 times a week
40838 Halkali (Turkey) – Kelebia (Hungary) – Komarom
(Hungary) – Dunajska Streda (Slovakia)
Container 2 times a week
41126 Soroksar-Terminal (Hungary) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) –
Neuss (Germany)
Container 5 times a week
41127 Neuss (Germany) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Soroksar-
Terminal (Hungary)
Container 5 times a week
41129 Neuss (Germany) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Soroksar-
Terminal (Hungary)
Container 5 times a week
41170 Dobra TKD (Slovakia) – Slovenske Nove Mesto (Slovakia)
– Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Villach Süd (Austria)
Container once a week
41171 Villach Süd (Austria) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) –
Slovenske Nove Mesto (Slovakia) – Dobra TKD (Slovakia)
Container once a week
41172 Dobra TKD (Slovakia) – Slovenske Nove Mesto (Slovakia)
– Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Villach Süd (Austria)
Container once a week
41173 Villach Süd (Austria) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) –
Hidasnemeti (Hungary) – Dobra TKD (Slovakia)
Container once a week
41355 Vienna (Austria) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Soroksar-
Terminal (Hungary)
Container on request
41356 Soroksar-Terminal (Hungary) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) –
Vienna (Austria)
Container on request
41357 Vienna (Austria) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Soroksar-
Terminal (Hungary)
Container on request
41378 Stambolijski (Bulgaria) – Kelebia (Hungary) –
Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – St. Michael (Austria)
Container once a week
41379 Zeltweg (Austria) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Subotica
(Serbia) – Stambolijski (Bulgaria)
Container once a week
41382 Soroksar Ut (Hungary) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) –
Austria
Container 5 times a week
41384 Soroksar-Terminal (Hungary) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) –
Austria
Container 5 times a week
194
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
42020 Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Soroksar-Terminal
(Hungary)
Container 5 times a week
42021 Soroksar-Terminal (Hungary) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Koper
(Slovenia)
Container 5 times a week
42022 Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Soroksar-Terminal
(Hungary)
Container 5 times a week
42023 Soroksar-Terminal (Hungary) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Koper
(Slovenia)
Container 5 times a week
42025 Soroksar-Terminal (Hungary) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Koper
(Slovenia)
Container 5 times a week
42050 Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Budaörs (Hungary) Container 2 times a week
42051 Budaörs (Hungary) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Koper (Slovenia) Container 2 times a week
42052 Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Budaörs (Hungary) Container 2 times a week
42402 Chiajna (Romania) – Curtici (Romania) – Györ (Hungary)
– Lambach (Austria)
Container 3 times a week
42403 Lambach (Austria) – Györ (Hungary) – Curtici (Romania)
– Chiajna (Romania)
Container 3 times a week
42900 Rijeka (Croatia) – Gyekenyes (Hungary) – Soroksar-
Terminal (Hungary)
Container once a week
42403 Lambach (Austria) – Györ (Hungary) – Curticii (Romania)
– Chiajna (Romania)
Container 3 times a week
42900 Rijeka (Хорватия) – Дьекенеш (Hungary) – Шорокшар-
Терминал (Hungary)
Container once a week
42901 Soroksar-Terminal (Hungary) – Gyekenyes (Hungary) –
Rijeka (Croatia)
Container once a week
43796 Koper (Slovenia) – Gyekenyes (Hungary) – Soroksar-
Terminal (Hungary)
Container on request
Vintu de Jos(Romania) – Lȍkösháza (Hungary) –
Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Koper (Slovenia)
Container once a week
Hallein (Austria) – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Lȍkösháza
(Hungary) – Vintu de Jos (Romania) Container once a week
Bilk Kombiterminal (Hungary) – Satoraljaujhely (Hungary)
– Velka Ida (Slovakia) Container on request
Bratislava (Slovakia) – Rajka (Hungary) – Hodos
(Slovenia) – Koper (Slovenia) Container on request
Vratimov (Czech Republic) – Rajka (Hungary) – Hodos
(Slovenia) – Koper (Slovenia) Container on request
Dobra (Frydek-Mistek) (Czech Republic) – Rajka
(Hungary) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Koper (Slovenia) Container on request
Zilina (Slovakia) – Rajka (Hungary) – Hodos (Slovenia) –
Koper (Slovenia) Container on request
Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Rajka (Hungary) –
Bratislava (Slovakia) Container on request
Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Rajka (Hungary) –
Vratimov (Czech Republic) Container on request
Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Rajka (Hungary) –
Dobra (Frydek-Mistek) (Czech Republic) Container on request
Koper (Slovenia) – Hodos (Slovenia) – Rajka (Hungary) –
Zilina (Slovakia) Container on request
Torokbalint (Hungary) – Gyekenyes (Hungary) – Rijeka
(Croatia) Container on request
Georgian Railway JSC (GR)
1201/1202 Poti / Batumi (Georgia) – Sadakhlo – Airum – Karmir Blur
/ Erevan (SCRW) Erevan / Karmir Blur – Airum – Sadakhlo – Poti / Batumi
Container according to
plan
1203/1204 Poti / Batumi (Georgia) – Ayrum / Masis / Karmir Blur /
Erevan („SKE“ CJSC) Container according to
plan
195
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Erevan / Karmir-Blur / Masis / Ayrum – Poti / Batumi
National Company “Kazakhstan Temir Zholy“ JSC (KZH)
1029/1030 Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Kulunda – Saryagash –
Sergeli / Tashkent-Tov. / Chukursaj)
Container on request
Russia – Kazakhstan
(Nakhodka-Wost. / Bratsk / Ust-Ilimsk /
Lessosibirsk – Kulunda – Kostonaj)
Container on request
China – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Zabaykalsk – Kulunda – Almaty-1) Container on request
1031/1032 Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Rybniki / Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Lokot –
Saryagash – Ablyk / Ulugbek / Nukus / Pytniak / Kungrd/
Karshi / Buhara-2)
Container on request
Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan – Afghanistan
(Nakhodka-Wost. – Lokot – Saryagash – Galaba) Container on request
Russia – Kazakhstan
(Nakhodka-Wost. / Bratsk / Ust-Ilimsk / Lessosibirsk –
Lokot – Zashchita / Jeti-Su / Zhinischke / Aksu-1 / Astana /
Almaty-1)
(Zhinischke / Aksu-1 – Lokot – Nakhodka-Wost.)
(Vladivostok – Lokot – Almaty-1)
(Vladivostok – Lokot – Jeti-Su)
Container on request
1033/1034 Russia – Kazakhstan
(Noworossijsk – Kartaly-1 – Kostonaj) Container on request
1035/1036 Russia – Kazakhstan
(Buslowskaja – Semiglavy Mar – Zhinischke) Container on request
Russia – Kazakhstan
(Vorsini – Semiglavy Mar – Almaty-1) Container on request
1070/1069 Czech Republic / Slovakia – Poland – Belarus – Russia –
Kazakhstan
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Lokot – Zashchita)
Container on request
1072/1071 Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Brest – Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 – Kostonaj) Container on request
Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus
(ksu-1 – Kartaly-1 – Krassnoje – Brest) Container on request
1076/1075 Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan –
China
(Berlin / Duisburg / Hamburg – Malaszewicze – Brest –
Krassnoje – Iljezk-1 – Almaty-1 – Dostyk / Altynkol –
Chongqing / Zhengzhou)
Container on request
Poland – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan – China
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Iljezk-1 – Dostyk –
Chengdu)
Container on request
1078/1077
“Kazakhstan
Vector”
Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Malaszewicze – Brest – Krassnoje – Semiglavy Mar –
Arys-1)
Container on request
1142/1141 Slovakia – Ukraine – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Dobra – Chop – Zernovo – Kartaly-1 – Zashchita) Container on request
1160/1159 Hungary – Ukraine – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Budapest – Chop, Batevo – Zernovo – Iljezk-1 – Almaty-
1)
Container on request
1221/1222
“Saule-2” Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan –
Afghanistan
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj – Krassnoje –
Semiglavy Mar – Karakalpak – Galaba)
Container on request
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan Container on request
196
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj – Krassnoje –
Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe (ЕСР 6600-6640, 6648-6728,
67771-67772, 69740, 6976-6997, 6999, 7030-7042 ,7044-
7047, 7057, 7049, 7059-7075) / Almaty-1)
1226/1225
“Baltika-
Wind”
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Paneriai / Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj –
Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 – Kostonaj)
Container on request
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Paneriai / Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj –
Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 – Karagandy)
Container on request
1251/1252
“New Silk
Road”
China – Kazakhstan – Russia – Ukraine – Poland
(Dostyk – Iljezk-1 – Zernovo – Izov – Slawkow)
Container on request
1255/1256 China – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Altynkol – Saryagash – Ablyk / Sergeli / Chukursaj)
Container on request
1257/1258 China – Kazakhstan – Kyrgyzstan
(Altynkol – Lugowaja – Alamedin)
Container on request
1259/1260 Kazakhstan – Russia
(Jeti-Su – Semiglavy Mar – Obninskoje)
China – Kazakhstan – Russia
(Dostyk – Semiglavy Mar – Moscow-Tov.-Paveletskaja)
Container on request
Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus – Lithuania
(Zhinischke – Semiglavy Mar – Zakopyt׳e – Gudogaj –
Klaipeda)
Container on request
1259
“Saule”
China – Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus – Lithuania –
European Countries
(Dostyk – Iljezk-1 – Krassnoje – Gudogaj – Draugiste (Port
Klaipeda) / Sestokai)
Container on request
1260
“Saule-1”
Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) / Sestokai – Gudogaj –
Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 – Almaty-1)
Container on request
1262/1261 China – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Altynkol – Saryagash – Ablyk / Sergeli / Chukursaj) Container on request
1263/1264 Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus
(Zhinischke – Semiglavy Mar – Zakopyt’e – Brest) Container on request
1265/1266 China – Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus – Poland –
Germany
(Dostyk / Altynkol – Iljezk-1 – Krassnoje – Brest –
Malaszewicze)
Container on request
1267/1268 China – Kazakhstan – Russia – Belarus – Poland –
Germany
(Dostyk / Altynkol – Iljezk-1 – Krassnoje – Brest –
Malaszewicze)
Container on request
1269/1270 China – Kazakhstan – Russia
(Dostyk / Altynkol – Semiglavy Mar – Novorossijsk) Container on request
1275/1276 Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Lokot – Saryagash –
Ablyk / Ulygbek / Nukus / Pytniak / Chukursaj / Sergeli)
Container on request
Russia – Kazakhstan
(Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Lokot – Zashchita / Jeti-
Su / Almaty-1)
Container on request
1278/1277 Russia – Kazakhstan – China
(Buslovskaya – Iljezk-1 – Dostyk) Container on request
1280/1279
«Nomad
Express»
China – Kazakhstan – Azerbaijan – Georgia
(Dostyk – Aktau-Port-Parom – Aliat Port – Biejuk-Kiasik –
Poti)
Container on request
1282/1281 China – Kazakhstan – Russia – Azerbaijan – Georgia
(Dostyk – Semiglavy Mar – Samur – Biejuk-Kiasik –
Tbilisi-Uzlovaja)
Container on request
197
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
1292/1291 Russia – Kazakhstan – China
(Wiartsila – Iljezk-1 – Dostyk) Container on request
1350/1349
“Eurasia-1” Latvia – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Riga – Zilupe – Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe) Container on request
1415/1416 Estonia – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Muuga – Pechory-Pskovskije – Iljezk-1 – Almaty-1) Container on request
Estonia – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan – Afghanistan
(Muuga – Pechory-Pskovskije – Semiglavy Mar –
Karakalpak – Galaba)
Container on request
Estonia – Russia
(Muuga – Pechory-Pskovskije – Togliatti / Zhigulewskoje
More)
Container on request
1418/1417
“Baltic-
Transit”
Estonia / Lithuania – Latvia (Resekne) – Russia –
Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Valga / Eglaine – Zilupe – Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe –
Saryagash – Chukursaj)
Container on request
Estonia / Lithuania – Latvia (Resekne) – Russia –
Kazakhstan
(Valga / Eglaine – Zilupe – Semiglavy Mar – Almaty-1)
Container on request
Estonia / Lithuania – Latvia (Resekne) – Russia –
Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan – Afghanistan
(Valga / Eglaine – Zilupe – Semiglavy Mar – Karakalpak –
Galaba)
Container on request
1420/1419
“Baltic-
Transit-2”
Estonia – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Muuga / Paldiski – Narva – Petropavlovsk – Saryagash –
Chukursaj)
Container on request
Estonia – Russia – Kazakhstan – Kyrgyzstan
(Muuga / Paldiski – Narva – Petropavlovsk – Lugowaja –
Alamedin)
Container on request
Estonia – Russia – Kazakhstan – China
(Muuga – Narva – Petropavlovsk – Almaty-1 / Dostyk) Container on request
“Chinese Railways” Corporation (KZD)
Urumqi (China) – Berlin (Germany) Container
80619 Lianyungang (China) – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan) Container
80309 Tianjin (China) – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan) Container
Shenzhen, Alaschankou (China) – Dostyk (Kazakhstan) –
Iljezk-1, Suzemka (Russia) – Zernovo, Chop (Ukraine) –
Hungary via Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine
Container once a week
Latvian Railway SJSC (LDZ)
1401/1402
“Zubr” Estonia – Latvia – Belarus – Ukraine
(Ülemiste / Muuga – Valga – Indra – Slovechno –
Iljichovsk / Odessa)
Container 2 times a week
1350/1349
“Eurasia-1” Latvia – Russia – Kazakhstan
(Riga – Resekne – Sebezh – Ozinki / Aktobe) Container on request
1356/1355
“Riga-
Moscow”
Latvia – Russia
(Riga / Moscow-Tov. / Selatino) Container on request
1354/1353
“Riga
Express”
Latvia – Russia
(Riga / Liepaja – Kunzevo-2 / Moscow-Tov. / Silikatnaja /
Khovrino)
Container 2 times a week
„Lithuanian Railways“ JSC (LG)
1022/1021 Kaliningrad – Kybartai (Russia) – Vaidotai – Kena
(Lithuania) – Gudogaj – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje –
Container on request
198
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Kunzevo-2, Moscow-Tov.-Smolenskaja, Kupavna (Russia) 1220/ 1219
“Merkurij” Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Vaidotai – Kena (Lithuania) –
Gudogaj – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kunzevo-2,
Moscow-Tov.-Smolenskaja, Silikatnaja, Kresty, Sewernaja
(Russia)
1210/1209
“Vilnius
Shuttle”
European Countries – Lithuania
Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Paneriai – Draugiste (Port
Klaipeda) (Lithuania)
Container once a week
1222/1221
“Saule-2” Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj –
Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Ozinki (Russia) –
Semiglavy Mar – Oasis (Kazakhstan) – Karakalpak –
Galaba (Uzbekistan) – Afghanistan Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj –
Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Ozinki (Russia) –
Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe, Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1226/1225
“Baltic-
Wind”
Paneriai, Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Kena (Lithuania) –
Gudogaj – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kartaly-1
(Russia) – Aksu (Oblast) – Kostonaj, Karagandy
(Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1259/1260 Zhinischke – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Ozinki –
Zlynka (Russia) – Zakopyt׳e – Gudogaj (Belarus) – Kena –
Klaipeda (Lithuania)
Container on request
1259
“Saule” Dostyk – Iljezk-1 (Kazakhstan) – Kanisaj (Russia) –
Krassnoje (Russia) – Osinovka – Gudogaj (Belarus) – Kena
– Draugiste (Port Klaipeda), Sestokai (Lithuania) –
European Countries
Container on request
1260
“Saule-1” Draugiste (Port Klaipeda), Sestokai – Kena (Lithuania) –
Gudogaj – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Aksu (Oblast)
(Russia) – Kartaly-1 – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1418 /1417*
“Baltic-
Transit”
Draugiste (Klaipeda) – Rokiskis (Lithuania) – Eglaine –
Resekne – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin – Ozinki (Russia) –
Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe – Saryagash (Kazakhstan) –
Keles – Chukursaj (Uzbekistan)
Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Rokiskis (Lithuania) – Eglaine
– Resekne – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin – Ozinki (Russia) –
Semiglavy Mar – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan) Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Rokiskis (Lithuania) – Eglaine
– Resekne – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin – Ozinki (Russia) –
Semiglavy Mar – Oasis (Kazakhstan) – Karakalpak –
Galaba (Uzbekistan) – Afghanistan
Container on request
1430/1429
“Viking” Draugiste (Klaipeda) – Kena – Gudogaj – Slovechno
(Belarus) – Berezhest – Odessa-Port, Iljichovsk-Paromnaja,
Iljichovsk – Mogilev-Podolski (Ukraine) – Oknica
(Moldova) Draugiste (Klaipeda) – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj –
Slovechno (Belarus) – Berezhest – Iljichovsk-Paromnaja
(Ukraine) – Bulgaria
Container and
contrailer train
daily
110191/
110190
“Sestokai
Ekspres”
Gądki – Trakiszki (Poland) / Mockawa – Sestokai
(Lithuania) Container once a week in
both directions
Railway of Moldova State Enterprise (CFM)
1401/1402
“Zubr” Ülemiste / Muuga – Valga (Estonia) – Lugazhi – Indra
(Latvia) – Bigossowo – Slovechno (Belarus) – Berezhest
(Ukraine) – Iljichovsk / Iljichovsk-Paromnaja / Odessa-Port
/ Mogilev-Podolski / Izov (Ukraine) – Valcinet – Oknica
(Moldova) / Hrubieszow – Slawkow (Poland)
Container 3 times a week
1362/1361 Draugiste Port – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj – Slovechno Container and 2 times a week
199
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
“Viking” (Belarus) – Berezhest – Odessa / Iljischowsk / Iljischowsk -
Paromnaja (Ukraine) – Bulgaria – Mogilev-Podolski
(Ukraine) – Oknica (Moldova)
contrailer train
experimental Rybnica – Kolbasnaja (Moldova) / Slobodka – Izov
(Ukraine) / Hrubieszow – Zamosc (Poland)
Ulan Bator Railway JSC (UBZD)
1406
“Mongolian
Vector”
Brest (Belarus) – Nauschki (Russia) / Süchbaatar
(Mongolia) – Ulan Bator (Mongolia) Container 2 times a month
1405 Xingang (China) – Erlian (China) / Zamyn-Uud (Mongolia)
– Ulan Bator (Mongolia) Container on request
1201/1202
“Ostwind” Zamyn-Uud (Mongolia) – Ulan Bator (Mongolia) beschleunigter
Containerzug
2 trains daily
1285 China – Mongolia – Russia – Belarus – European Countries
(Erlian / Zamyn-Uud – Ulan Bator – Sukhe-Bator /
Naushki – Brest)
Container 4 times a month
1286 European Countries – Belarus – Russia – Mongolia – China
(Brest – Naushki / Sukhe-Bator – Ulan Bator – Zamyn-Uud
/ Erlian)
Container 2 times a month
Polish Railways JSC (PKP Cargo)
42475 Hamburg (Germany) – Pruszkow (Poland) Container 7 times a week
42467
42466 Hamburg (Germany) – Mlawa (Poland)
Mlawa (Poland) – Hamburg (Germany) Container 3 times a week
once a week
42479
42478 Hamburg (Germany) – Wroclaw (Poland)
Wroclaw (Poland) – Hamburg (Germany) Container 4 times a week
2 times a week
42473
42474 Hamburg (Germany) – Warszawa-Praga (Poland)
Warszawa-Praga (Poland) – Hamburg (Germany) Container 6 times a week
3 times a week
42471 Hamburg (Germany) – Poznan (Poland) Container 2 times a week
41363
41369/41362 Rotterdam (Netherlands) – Poznan (Poland) – Rotterdam
(Netherlands) Container 4 times a week
42477 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Poznan (Poland) Container 4 times a week
42468 Poznan (Poland) – Bremerhaven (Germany) Container once a week
402404/
42405 Ruhland (Germany) – Poznan (Poland)
Ruhland (Germany) – Warszawa-Praga (Poland) Container 5 times a week
42333;
42331/42330 Rotterdam (Netherlands) – Warszawa-Praga (Poland)
Warszawa-Praga (Poland) – Rotterdam (Netherlands) Container 3 times a week
41365 Rotterdam (Netherlands) – Malaszewicze (Poland) – CIS
countries Container once a week
42452
“West Wind” CIS countries – Malaszewicze (Poland) – Seddin
(Germany) Container 5 times a week
40503
40504 Piacenza (Italy) – Gliwice (Poland)
Gliwice (Poland) – Piacenza (Italy) Container 2 times a week
once a week
42463 Duisburg R.H. (Germany) – Pruszkow (Poland) Container 3 times a week
42455
42462 Duisburg (Germany) – Pruszkow (Poland)
Pruszkow (Poland) – Duisburg (Germany) Container once a week
4 times a week
4572/5472 Zilina (Slovakia) – Skandawa (Poland) – Zilina (Slovakia)
– Tschernjachowsk (Russia) Container 7 times a week
43202,43206/
43205,43209 Mlada Boleslav (Czech Republic) – Malaszewicze (Poland)
– Mlada Boleslav (Czech Republic) – Kaluga (Russia) Container 12 times a week
42467
42466 Hamburg (Germany) – Mlawa (Poland)
Mlawa (Poland) – Hamburg (Germany) Container once a week
once a week
41372
42476/42472
42471
42475
Poznan (Poland) – Hamburg (Germany)
Poznan (Poland) – Hamburg (Germany)
Hamburg (Germany) – Poznan (Poland)
Hamburg (Germany) – Poznan (Poland)
Container once a week
4 times a week
4 times a week
5 times a week
200
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
49408
49407 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Wolfsburg (Germany)
Wolfsburg (Germany) – Malaszewicze (Poland) Container 5 times a week
once a week
40424
40419 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Vesoul (France)
Vesoul (France) – Malaszewicze (Poland) Container 5 times a week
in both
directions
41369/41367
41368 Rotterdam (Netherlands) – Poznan (Poland)
Poznan (Poland) – Rotterdam (Netherlands) Container 2 times a week
2 times a week
42477
42468 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Poznan (Poland)
Poznan (Poland) – Bremerhaven (Germany) Container 4 times a week
inboth
directions
42404
42405 Poznan (Poland) – Ruhland (Germany)
Ruhland (Germany) – Warszawa-Praga (Poland) Container 5 times a week
5 times a week
42331
42333
42330
Rotterdam (Netherlands) – Warszawa-Praga (Poland)
Warszawa-Praga (Poland) – Rotterdam (Netherlands) Container 3 times a week
in both
directions
40701
40702 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Györ (Hungary)
Györ (Hungary) – Malaszewicze (Poland) Container 3 times a week
in both
directions
42453
“Ostwind” Großbeeren (Germany) – Malaszewicze (Poland) – CIS
countries Container 3 times a week
42452
“Westwind” Malaszewicze (Poland) – Großbeeren (Germany) Container 3 times a week
43303
43302 Duisburg R.H. (Germany) – Walbrzych (Poland)
Walbrzych (Poland) – Duisburg R.H. (Germany) Container once a week
in both
directions
42463 Duisburg R.H. (Germany) – Pruszkow (Poland) Container 3 times a week
42462 Pruszkow (Poland) – Duisburg (Germany) Container 2 times a week
4572/5472 Zilina (Slovakia) – Skandawa – Zilina (Slovakia) –
Tschernjachowsk (Russia) Container 7 times a week
in both
directions
43202
43209 Mlada Boleslav (Czech Republic) – Malaszewicze (Poland)
– Mlada Boleslav (Czech Republic) – Kaluga (Russia) Container 7 times a week
in both
directions
41840
41841 Velka Ida (Slovakia) – Malaszewicze (Poland) – Velka Ida
(Slovakia) – Kaluga (Russia) Container 7 times a week
in both
directions
17078
71078 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Kobylnica (Project Kaluga)
Kobylnica – Malaszewicze (Poland) (Project Kaluga) Container once a week
in both
directions
Individual
timetabele Portogruaro (Italy) – Malaszewicze (Poland)
Malaszewicze (Poland) – Portogruaro (Italy) Container once a week
in both
directions
112002 Chengdu (China) – Malaszewicze – Łódz Olechów
(Poland) Container once a week
Zamośc Bortatycze LHS (Poland) – Rybnica Oknica
(Moldova)
Rybnica Oknica (Moldova) – Zamośc Bortatycze LHS
(Poland)
Container 4 times a week
in both
directions
Russian Railways JSC (RZD JSC)
1022/1021 Kaliningrad Sort. (Russia) – Nesterov (Russia) – Kybartai
(Lithuania) – Gudogaj – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje –
Kunzevo-2, Moscow-Tov.-Smolenskaja (Russia)
Container on request
1023/1024 Mandschurei (China) – Zabaikalsk – Suzemka (Russia) –
Zernovo – Chop / Batevo (Ukraine) – European Countries Container on request
1025/1026 Mandschurei (China) – Zabaikalsk – Krassnoje (Russia) –
Osinovka – Brest (Belarus) Container on request
1027/1028 Nakhodka, Nakhodka-Vost. – Krassnoje (Russia) – Container on request
201
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Osinovka – Brest (Belarus) 1029/1030 Nakhodka-Vost., Vladivostok – Kulunda (Russia) –
Kurkamys – Saryagash (Kazakhstan) – Sergeli, Tashkent-
Tov., Chukursaj, (Uzbekistan);
Nakhodka-Vost. – Bratsk, Ust-Ilimsk, Lessosibirsk –
Kulunda (Russia) – Kostonaj (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1031/1032 Zhinischke / Aksu-1 (Kazakhstan) – Lokot, Nakhodka-
Wost. (Russia)
Container on request
Zabaykalsk / Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. / Bratsk / Ust-
Ilimsk / Lessosibirsk / Lokot (Russia) – Zashchita / Jeti-Su
/ Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
Zashchita (Kazakhstan) – Lokot (Russia) – Moscow-Tov.-
Paveletskaja / Kunzevo-2 / Sbornaja-Ugolnaja / Moskow-
Tov. (Moskow)
Container on request
1033/1034 Novorossijsk – Kartaly 1 (Russia) – Kustonaj (Kazakhstan) Container on request
1035/1036 Buslowskaja – Ozinki (Russia) – Semiglavy Mar –
Zhinishke (Kazakhstan) Container on request
Vorsino (Russia) – Ozinki – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan)
– Almaty-1 Container on request
1037/1038 Zabaikalsk – Krassnoje (Russia) – Osinovka – Brest
(Belarus) – Malaszewicze (Poland) – European Countries;
Vladivostok, Nakhodka-Vost. – Krassnoje (Russia) –
Osinovka – Brest (Belarus) – Malaszewicze (Poland) –
European Countries
Container on request
1039/1040 Zabaikalsk, Vladivostok, Nakhodka-Vost. – Krassnoje
(Russia) – Osinovka – Brest (Belarus) – Malaszewicze
(Poland) – European Countries)
Container on request
1062/1061 European Countries – Bruzgi – Osinovka (Belarus) –
Krassnoje – Nowoijerusalimskaja (Russia) Container on request
1064/1063 France – Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka
(Belarus) – Krassnoje – Vorotinsk (Russia) Container on request
1066/1065
“Ostwind” Berlin / Großbeeren (Germany) – Malaszewicze (Poland) –
Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Bekassovo-Sort.,
Kunzevo-2, Vorsino (Russia)
Container on request
1068/1067 Germany – Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka
(Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kunzevo-2, Silikatnaja (Russia);
Germany – Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka
(Belarus) – Krassnoje – Moscow-Tov. Oktjabrskaja, via
Khovrino (Russia)
Container on request
1070/1069 Czech Republic / Slovakia – Malaszewicze (Poland) –
Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Lokot (Russia) –
Zashchita (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1072/1071 Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kartaly-1
(Russia) – Kostonaj (Kazakhstan) Container on request
1074/1073 Germany – Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka
(Belarus) – Krassnoje – Nakhodka-Vost. (Russia) Container on request
1076/1075 Berlin / Duisburg / Hamburg (Germany) – Malaszewicze
(Poland) – Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje –
Kanisaj (Russia) – Iljezk-1 – Almaty-1 – Dostyk / Altynkol
(Kazakhstan) – Chongqing / Zhengzhou (China);
Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) –
Krassnoje – Kanisaj (Russia) Iljezk-1 – Dostyk
(Kazakhstan) – Chengdu (China)
Container on request
1078/1077
“Kazakhstan
Vector”
Germany – Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka
(Belarus) – Krassnoje – Ozinki (Russia) – Semiglavy Mar –
Arys-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1080/1079 Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kaluga-1,
Perspektivnaja (Russia) Container on request
1082/1081 Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kaluga-1, Container on request
202
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Perspektivnaja (Russia) 1084/1083 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) –
Krassnoje – Silikatnaja, Tikhonovo (Russia) Container on request
1086/1085
“Mongolian
Vector”
Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Nauschki
(Russia) – Süchbaatar (Mongolia) Container on request
1088/1087 Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kaluga-1,
Perspektivnaja (Russia) Container on request
1090/1089 Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kostaricha,
Nizhny Novgorod-Avtozavod (Russia) Container on request
1156/1155 Dornesti (Romania) – Vadul-Siret – Zernovo (Ukraine) –
Suzemka – Togliatti, via Kustarevka (Russia) Container on request
1158/1157
«Odessa» Odessa-Port – Zernovo (Ukraine) – Suzemka – Moscow-
Tov.-Paveletskaja (Russia) Container on request
1162/1161 Kosice (Slovakia) / Czech Republic – Uzhgorod (Ukraine)
– Perspektivnaja, Nizhny Novgorod-Avtozavod (Russia) Container on request
1164/1163 Dobra (Slovakia) – Chop – Zernovo (Ukraine) – Suzemka
– Moscow-Tov.-Paveletskaja, Silikatnaja (Russia) Container on request
1219/1220
“Merkurij” Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj –
Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kunzevo-2, Moscow-
Tov.-Smolenskaja, Kresty, Silikatnaja, Severnaja (Russia)
Container on request
1221/1222
«Saule 2» Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj –
Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Ozinki – Semiglavy Mar
(Kazakhstan) – Karakalpak – Galaba (Uzbekistan) –
Afghanistan
Container on request
Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj –
Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Ozinki – Semiglavy Mar
(Kazakhstan) – Aktobe / Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1226/1225
“Baltic-
Wind”
Panariai / Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) (Lithuania) – Gudogaj
– Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje – Kartaly-1 (Russia) –
Karagandy (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1251/1252 Zabaykalsk / Rybniki / Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. /
Bratsk /
Ust-Ilimsk / Lessosibirsk – Kulunda (Russia) – Kurkamys –
Saryagash (Kazakhstan) – Sergeli / Chukursaj (Uzbekistan)
Container on request
1275/1276 Ablyk / Ulygbek / Nukus / Pytniak / Karshy / Buchara-2 –
Jizzakh (Uzbekistan) – Saryagash – Iljezk-1 (Kazakhstan) –
Kanisaj – Moscow-Tov.-Paveletskaja / Kuncevo-2 /
Sbornaja-Ugolnaja / Moskow-Tov. (Russia)
Container on request
1285/1286 Rybniki / Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. / Bratsk / Ust-
Ilimsk / Lessosibirsk – Lokot (Russia) – Saryagash
(Kazakhstan) – Ablyk / Ulygbek / Nukus / Pytniak / Karshy
/ Buhara-2 / Jizzakh (Uzbekistan)
Container on request
1253/1254
“New Silk
Road”
China – Dostyk – Iljezk-1 (Kazakhstan) – Kanisaj –
Suzemka (Russia) – Zernovo – Chop, Batevo – Dobra
(Slovakia) / Budapest (Hungary)
Container on request
1255/1256 China – Altynkol / Dostyk – Saryagash(Kazakhstan) –
Ablyk / Sergeli / Chukursaj (Uzbekistan) Container on request
1257/1258 Kustonaj (Kazakhstan) – Kartaly-1 – Moskcow Tov.-
Paveletskaja / Kuncevo-2 / Sbornaja-Ugolnaja / Moskow-
Tov. (Russia)
Container on request
1267/1268 Jeti-Su – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Ozinki –
Obninskoje (Russia) Container on request
1259/1260
«Сауле»
«Сауле 1»
Zhinischke – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Ozinki –
Zlynka (Russia) – Zakopyt׳e – Gudogaj (Belarus) – Kena –
Klajpeda (Lithuania)
Container on request
China – Dostyk / Altynkol – Iljezk-1 (Kazakhstan) –
Kanisaj – Krassnoje (Russia) – Osinovka – Gudogaj
(Belarus) – Kena – Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) / Šeštokai
Container on request
203
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
(Lithuania) – European Countries Draugiste (port Klaipeda) / Šeštokai – Kena (Lithuania) –
Gudogaj – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje (Russia) –
Kartaly-1 – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
1263/1264 Zhinischke – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Ozinki –
Zlynka (Russia) – Zakopyt׳e – Brest (Belarus)
1265/1266 China – Dostyk / Altynkol – Iljezk-1 (Kazakhstan) –
Kanisaj – Krassnoje – Ozinki (Russia) – Brest (Belarus) –
Malaszewicze (Poland) – Germany
Container on request
1269/1270 China – Dostyk / Altynkol – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan)
– Ozinki – Novorossijsk (Russia)
Container on request
1278/1277 Buslovskaja – Kanisaj (Russia) – Iljezk-1 – Dostyk
(Kazakhstan) – China
Container on request
1282/1281 China – Dostyk – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Ozinki –
Samur (Russia) – Yalama ( Azerbaijan) – Beyuk-Kyasik –
Tbilisi-Uzlovaja (Georgia)
Container on request
1284/1283 China – Dostyk (Kazakhstan) – Kartaly-1 – Formachev
(Russia)
Container on request
1292/1291 Viartsila – Kanisaj (Russia) – Iljezk-1 - Dostyk
(Kazakhstan) – China Container on request
1350/1349
“Eurasia-1» Riga – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin – Ozinki (Russia) –
Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe (Kazakhstan) Container on request
1354/1353
„Riga
Express”
Riga / Liepaja – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin – Bekassovo Sort.,
Kaluga-1, Kunzevo-2, Moscow-Tov.-Okt., Khovrino,
Moscow-2-Mytkovo, Obninskoje, Vorotinsk (Russia)
Container on request
1356/1355
„Riga
Express-2”
Riga – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin – Bekassovo-Sort.,
Moscow-Tov.-Okt. (Russia) Container on request
1409/1410 Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije –
Moscow-Tov.-Oct., Khovrino, Shushary, Moscow-2-
Mytkovo, Kaluga-1, Kunzevo-2, Obninskoje, Tuchkovo,
Vorotinsk (Russia)
Container on request
1411/1412 Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije –
Moscow-Tov.-Oct., Vorotinsk (Russia)
Container on request
1415/1416 Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije – Kanisaj
(Russia) – Iljezk-1 – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije – Ozinki
(Russia) – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Karakalpak –
Galaba (Uzbekistan) – Afghanistan
Container on request
Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije –
Togliatti, Zhigulevskoje More (Russia)
Container on request
1418/1417
“Baltic-
Transit”
Valga (Estonia) / Eglaine (Latvia) – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin
– Ozinki (Russia) – Semiglavy Mar – Aktobe – Saryagash
(Kazakhstan) – Chukursaj (Uzbekistan)
Container on request
Valga (Estonia) / Eglaine (Latvia) – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin
– Ozinki (Russia) – Semiglavy Mar – Almaty-1
(Kazakhstan)
Container on request
Valga (Estonia) / Eglaine (Latvia) – Zilupe (Latvia) – Posin
– Ozinki (Russia) – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) –
Karakalpak – Galaba (Uzbekistan) – Afghanistan
Container on request
1420/1419
“Baltic-
Transit-2”
Muuga / Paldiski – Narva (Estonia) / Ivangorod-Narvskij –
Petropavlovsk (Russia) – Saryagash (Kazakhstan) –
Chukursaj (Uzbekistan)
Container on request
Muuga / Paldiski – Narva (Estonia) – Ivangorod-Narvskij –
Petropavlovsk (Russia) – Lugowaja (Kazakhstan) –
Alamedin (Kyrgyzstan)
Muuga – Narva (Estonia) – Ivangorod-Narvskij –
Petropavlovsk
(Russia) – Almaty-1 – Dostyk (Kazakhstan) – China
204
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Muuga – Narva (Estonia) – Ivangorod-Narvskij –
Blochnaja, Ekaterinburg-Tov. (Russia) 1421/1422 Grivno – Krassnoje (Russia) – Osinovka – Gudogaj
(Belarus) – Kybartai (Lithuania) – Nesterov – Lesnoje-
Novoje (Russia)
Container and
contrailer train
on request
1423/1424 Grivno – Krassnoje (Russia) – Osinovka – Gudogaj
(Belarus) – Kybartai (Lithuania) – Lesnoje – Novoje
(Russia)
Container and
contrailer train
on request
1425/1426 Akulovo, Grivno – Krassnoje (Russia) – Osinovka –
Gudogaj (Belarus) – Kybartai (Lithuania) – Lesnoje –
Novoje (Russia)
Container and
contrailer train
on request
1427/1428 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) –
Krassnoje – Michnevo (Russia) Container and
contrailer train
on request
1432/1431 Matiwcy (Slovakia) – Uzhgorod-2 – Тополи (Ukraine) –
Kartaly-1 (Russia) – Astana (Kazakhstan) Contrailer on request
1101/1102
«Europe-
Express»
Berlin – Brest – Osinovka (Belarus) – Krassnoje –
Bekassovo-Sortirovochnoje / Kuncevo-2 (Russia) fast freight on request
Kuncevo-2 / Bekassovo-Sortirovochnoje – Krassnoje
(Russia) – Osinovka – Brest (Belarus) – Berlin
fast freight on request
National Railway Company of Romania JSC (CFR Marfa)
40805/40806 Berceni (Romania) – Piacenza (Italy) Extending bodies and
semi-trailers
once a week
51352/94688 Ciumesti (Romania) – Moscow (Russia) / Togliatti via
Dornesti – Vadul Siret
Container 4 times a week
National Railway Company Cargo Slovakia JSC (ZSSK Cargo)
40736 Budapest – Chop (Hungary) – Sturowo – Kuty (Slovakia) –
Lanzhot – Decin (Czech Republic) – Bad Schandau –
Bremerhaven (Germany)
Container once a week
40737 Bremerhaven – Bad Schandau (Germany) – Decin –
Lanzhot (Czech Republic) – Kuty – Sturowo (Slovakia) –
Chop – Budapest (Hungary)
Container 2 times a week
40738 Budapest – Chop (Hungary) – Sturowo – Kuty (Slovakia) –
Lanzhot – Decin (Czech Republic) – Bad Schandau –
Bremerhaven (Germany)
Container once a week
41340 Bratislava – Kuty (Slovakia) – Lanzhot – Decin (Czech
Republic) – Bad Schandau – Bremerhaven (Germany)
Container once a week
41345 Bremerhaven – Bad Schandau (Germany) – Decin –
Lanzhot (Czech Republic) – Kuty – Bratislava (Slovakia)
Container once a week
41349 Bremerhaven – Bad Schandau (Germany) – Decin –
Lanzhot (Czech Republic) – Kuty – Bratislava (Slovakia)
Container once a week
41601 Gratwein – Marchegg (Austria) – Devinska Nova Ves –
Liptowski Hradok (Slovakia)
Container 3 times a week
41603 Hallein – Marchegg (Austria) – Devinska Nova Ves –
Liptovski Hradok (Slovakia)
Container 2 times a week
41604 Liptovski Hradok – Devinska Nova Ves (Slovakia) –
Marchegg – Hallein (Austria)
Container 2 times a week
41170 Dobra TKD – Slovenske Nove Mesto (Slovakia) –
Sátorailjaujhely – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Villach
(Austria)
Container once a week
41171 Vienna (Austria) – Hegyeshalom – Sátorailjaujhely
(Hungary) – Slovenske Nove Mesto – TDK Dobra
(Slovakia)
Container once a week
41172 Dobra TKD – Slovenske Nove Mesto (Slovakia) –
Sátorailjaujhely – Hegyeshalom (Hungary) – Vienna
Container once a week
205
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
(Austria)
41173 Villach (Austria) – Hegyeshalom – Hidashnemeti
(Hungary) – Csanya – TDK Dobra (Slovakia)
Container once a week
41630 Bratislava (Slovakia) – Marchegg – Vienna (Austria) Container once a week
41740 Liskowa – Cadca (Slovakia) – Mosty u Jablunkova –
Paskow (Czech Republic)
Container once a week
41741 Paskow – Mosty u Jablunkova (Czech Republic) – Cadca –
Liskowa (Slovakia)
Container once a week
41752 Bratislava – Kuty (Slovakia) – Lanzhot – Melnik (Czech
Republic)
Container once a week
41753 Melnik – Lanzhot (Czech Republic) – Kuty – Bratislava
(Slovakia)
Container once a week
41807 Melnik – Lanzhot (Czech Republic) – Kuty – Sturowo
(Slovakia) – Chop – Budapest (Hungary)
Container once a week
41840 Zilina – Cadca (Slovakia) – Mosty u Jablunkova –
Petrovice (Czech Republic) – Malaszewicze (Poland)
Container once a week
41841 Malaszewicze – Zebrzydowice (Poland) – Petrovice –
Mosty u Jablunkova (Czech Republic) – Cadca – Zilina
(Slovakia)
Container once a week
41842 Zilina – Cadca (Slovakia) – Mosty u Jablunkova –
Petrowice (Czech Republic) – Zebrzydowice – Korsze –
Skandawa (Poland) – Zhelesnodorozhny –
Tschernjachowsk (Russia)
Container 7 times a week
41843 Tschernjachowsk – Zhelesnodorozhny (Russia) –
Skandawa – Korsze – Zebrzydowice (Poland) – Petrowice
– Mosty u Jablunkova (Czech Republic) – Cadca – Zilina
(Slovakia)
Container 7 times a week
42632 Bratislava (Slovakia) – Marchegg – Enns (Austria) Container once a week
43600 Koper – Maribor (Slovenia) – Spielfeld – Marchegg
(Austria) – Devinska Nova Ves – Zilina (Slovakia)
Container 7 times a week
43601 Zilina – Devinska Nova Ves (Slovakia) – Marchegg –
Spielfeld (Austria) – Maribor – Koper (Slovenia)
Container 7 times a week
43602 Koper – Maribor (Slovenia) – Spielfeld – Marchegg
(Austria) – Devinska Nova Ves – Zilina (Slovakia)
Container once a week
43603 Zilina – Devinska Nova Ves (Slovakia) – Marchegg –
Spielfeld (Austria) – Maribor – Koper (Slovenia)
Container once a week
43610 Koper – Maribor (Slovenia) – Spielfeld – Marchegg
(Austria) – Devinska Nova Ves – Sladkovicovo (Slovakia)
Container on request
43630 Koper – Maribor (Slovenia) – Spielfeld – Marchegg
(Austria) – Devinska Nova Ves – Bratislava (Slovakia)
Container 3 times a week
43631 Bratislava – Devinska Nova Ves (Slovakia) – Marchegg –
Spielfeld (Austria) – Maribor – Koper (Slovenia)
Container 3 times a week
43632 Koper – Maribor (Slovenia) – Spielfeld – Marchegg
(Austria) – Devinska Nova Ves – Sladkovicovo (Slovakia)
– Bratislava (Slovakia)
Container once a week
51792 TDK Dobra – Bratislava (Slovakia) Container on request
55790 Zilina – Dunajska Streda (Slovakia) Container 3 times a week
57591 Dunajska Streda – Zilina (Slovakia) Container 3 times a week
JSC “Uzbek Railways” (UTI)
1029/1030 Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Kulunda – Saryagash –
Sergely / Tashkent-Tov. / Chukursaj)
container on request
1031/1032 Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Lokot – Saryagash –
Ablyk)
container,
57 wagons
4 times a week
Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Vladivostok / Nakhodka-Wost. – Lokot – Saryagash –
container,
57 wagons
once a week
206
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Ulugbek / Nukus / Pytniak)
Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan – Afghanistan
(Nakhodka-Vost. – Lokot – Saryagash – Galaba)
container,
57 wagons
on request
1221/1222 Lithuania – Belarus – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan –
Afghanistan
(Draugiste (Port Klaipeda) – Gudogaj – Krassnoje –
Semiglavy Mar – Karakalpak – Galaba)
container,
57 wagons
on request
1255/1256 China – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Altynkol – Saryagash – Ablyk / Sergeli / Chukursaj)
container,
57 wagons
on request
1262/1261 China – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Altynkol – Saryagash – Ablyk / Sergeli / Chukursaj)
container,
57 wagons
on request
1415/1416 Estonia – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan – Afghanistan
(Muuga – Pechory-Pskovskije – Semiglavy Mar –
Karakalpak – Galaba)
container,
57 wagons
on request
1420/1419
“Baltika-
Transit-2”
Estonia – Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan
(Muuga / Paldiski – Narva – Petropavlovsk – Saryagash –
Chukursaj)
container,
57 wagons
on request
State Administration for Railway Transport of Ukraine (UZ)
1158/1157
„Odessa”
Odessa – Zernovo (Ukraine) – Suzemka – Moskow-
Paveletskaja – Vorsino (Russia)
Container on request
1430/1429
„Viking”
Draugiste-Port – Kena (Lithuania) – Gudogaj – Slovechno
(Belarus) – Berezhest – Odessa / Iljischowsk / Iljischowsk-
Paromnaja / Mogilev-Podolski (Ukraine) – Varna – Sofia
(Bulgaria) / Valcinet – Giurgiuleşti / Ugeny (Moldova) –
Jassy (Romania)
Contrailer train 3 times a week
1402/1401
„Zubr”
Ülemiste / Muuga – Valga (Estonia ) – Lugazhi – Indra
(Latvia) – Bigossowo – Slovechno (Belarus) – Berezhest –
Iljichovsk / Iljichovsk-Paromnaja / Odessa-Port / Mogilev-
Podolski / Izov (Ukraine) – Valcinet – Giurgiulesti
(Moldova)
Container 3 times a week
1156/1155 Ciumestii – Dornesti (Romania) – Vadul-Siret – Zernovo
(Ukraine) – Suzemka – Togliatti (Russia)
Container once a week
1162/1161 Villanova d׳Asti (Czech Republic) – Kosice – Matiwcy
(Slovakia) – Uzhgorod-2 – Zernovo (Ukraine) – Suzemka –
Perspektivnaja / Nizhny Novgorod-Avtozavod (Russia)
Container once a week
1164/1163 Kosice – Matiwcy (Slovakia) – Chop – Zernovo (Ukraine)
– Suzemka – Moskow Tov.-Paveletskaja / Kuncevo 2 /
Silikatnaja / Vorsino (Russia)
Container once a week
1023/1024 Mandschurei (China) – Zabaykalsk – Suzemka (Russia) –
Zernovo – Chop (Ukraine) – Dobra (Slovakia) – Hungary Container on request
Nakhodka-Wost. – Suzemka (Russia) – Zernovo – Chop
(Ukraine) – Dobra (Slovakia) / Budapest (Hungary) Container on request
1153/1154 Nakhodka – Suzemka (Russia) – Zernowo – Chop
(Ukraine) – Dobra (Slovakia) – European Countries Container on request
1152/1151 Slawkow – Hrubieszow (Poland) – Izov – Mogilev-
Podolski (Ukraine) – Valcinet – Rybnica (Moldova) Container on request
1181/1182
„Krestshatik’ Odessa / Iljichovsk – Kiev-Liski (Ukraine) Container on request
1185/1186
„Dneprovez” Odessa / Iljichovsk – Dnepropetrovsk-Liski (Ukraine) Container on request
1183/1184
„Podolje” Odessa / Iljichovsk – Chmelnyzkyj (Ukraine) Container on request
1187/1188
1189/1190
„Nicka”
Nikopol – Iljichovsk (Ukraine) Container on request
1193/1194 Mariupol-Port – Kiev-Liski (Ukraine) Container on request
1197/1198 Zaporozhye 1 – Iljichovsk (Ukraina) Container on request
207
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
1433/1434
„Yaroslav” Lugansk / Kiev – Izov (Ukraine) – Hrubieszow – Slawkow
(Poland) Combined train on request
1432/1431 Kosice – Matiwcy (Slovakia) – Uzhgorod-2 – Zernovo
(Ukraine) – Suzemka – Kartaly 1 (Russia) – Aksu – Astana
(Kazakhstan)
Contrailer on request
1251/1252
1254/1253
„New Silk
Road”
Lianyungang / Xian – Alaschankou (China) – Dostyk –
Iljezk-1 (Kazakhstan) – Suzemka (Russia) – Zernovo –
Chop (Ukraine) – West-European Countries
Container on request
Czech Railways JSC (CD Cargo)
40736 Budapest (Hungary) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Decin (Czech
Republic) – Bremerhaven (Germany)
Container once a week
40737 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Kuty
(Slovakia) – Budapest (Hungary)
Container 2 times a week
40738 Budapest (Hungary) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Decin (Czech
Republic) – Bremerhaven (Germany)
Container once a week
41341 Hamburg (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Melnik
(Czech Republic)
Container 5 times a week
41342 Melnik (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Hamburg (Germany)
Container 4 times a week
41343 Hamburg (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Melnik
(Czech Republic)
Container 5 times a week
41344 Melnik (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Hamburg (Germany)
Container 4 times a week
41345 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Melnik (Czech Republic)
Container once a week
41347 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Melnik (Czech Republic)
Container once a week
41348 Melnik (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Bremerhaven (Germany)
Container once a week
41349 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Kuty
(Slovakia) – Bratyslava (Slovakia)
Container once a week
41355 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Melnik (Czech Republic)
Container once a week
41356 Melnik (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Bremerhaven (Germany)
Container once a week
41357 Bremerhaven (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Melnik (Czech Republic)
Container once a week
41360 Lovosice (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Duisburg (Germany)
Container 5 times a week
41361 Duisburg (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Lovosice
(Czech Republic)
Container 5 times a week
41362 Lovosice (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Hamburg (Germany)
Container once a week
41369 Hamburg (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Lovosice
(Czech Republic)
Container 2 times a week
41378 Lovosice (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic) –
Hamburg (Germany)
Container 4 times a week
41379 Hamburg (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Lovosice
(Czech Republic)
Container once a week
41720 Dunajska Streda(Slovakia) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Havirov
(Czech Republic)
Container once a week
41721 Havirov (Czech Republic) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Dunajska
Streda(Slovakia)
Container once a week
41730 Dunajska Streda(Slovakia) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Ceska
Trebova (Czech Republic)
Container 7 times a week
41731 Ceska Trebova (Czech Republic) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Container 7 times a week
208
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
Dunajska Streda (Slovakia)
41732 Dunajska Streda (Slovakia) – Kuty (Slovakia – Ceska
Trebova (Czech Republic)
Container 7 times a week
41733 Ceska Trebova (Czech Republic) – Kuty (Slovakia) –
Dunajska Streda (Slovakia)
Container 7 times a week
41752 Bratislava (Slovakia) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Melnik (Czech
Republic)
Container 2 times a week
41753 Melnik (Czech Republic) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Bratislava
(Slovakia)
Container once a week
42328 Praha Žižkov (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic)
– Hamburg (Germany)
Container 6 times a week
42335 Hamburg (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Praha
Žižkov (Czech Republic)
Container 6 times a week
42340 Praha Žižkov (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic)
– Pirna (Germany)
Container once a week
42343 Hamburg (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Praha
Žižkov (Czech Republic)
Container 2 times a week
42361 Pirna (Germany) – Decin (Czech Republic) – Praha Žižkov
(Czech Republic
Container once a week
42362 Praha Žižkov (Czech Republic) – Decin (Czech Republic)
– Pirna (Germany)
Container 2 times a week
43202 Mlada Boleslav (Czech Republic) – Petrovice (Czech
Republic) – Malaszewicze (Poland)
Container 2 times a week
43204 Mladá Boleslav (Czech Republic) – Petrovice (Czech
Republic) – Malaszewicze (Poland)
Container 2 times a week
43205 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Petrovice (Czech Republic) –
Mladá Boleslav (Czech Republic)
Container 2 times a week
43206 Mladá Boleslav(Czech Republic) – Petrovice (Czech
Republic) – Malaszewicze (Poland)
Container 2 times a week
43207 Malaszewicze (Poland) – Petrovice (Czech Republic) –
Mladá Boleslav(Czech Republic)
Container 2 times a week
43400 Koper (Slovenia) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Dobra (Czech
Republic)
Container 4 times a week
43401 Dobra (Czech Republic) – Kuty (Slovakia) – Koper
(Slovenia)
Container 2 times a week
South Caucasus Railway CJSC (SCR CJSC)
1202/1201 Karmir Blur / Yerevan – Ayrum (Armenia) – Sadakhlo
(Georgia) – Poti / Batumi
Container on request
Estonian Railway JSC (EVR)
1401/1402
„Zubr”
Ülemiste / Muuga – Valga (Estonia) – Indra (Latvia) –
Bigossowo – Slovechno (Belarus) – Berezhest – Iljichovsk
/ Iljichovsk-Paromnaja / Odessa-Port / Mogilev-Podolski /
Izov (Ukraine) – Valcinet – Oknica (Moldova)
Container on request
1409/1410 Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije (Russia)
– Moscow-Tov.Okt. / Schuschary Okt. / Moscow-2-
Mytkovo / Kaluga-1 / Kunzevo-2 / Obninskoje /
Tutschkowo / Vorotinsk / Khovrino
Container on request
1411/1412 Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije (Russia)
– Moscow-Tov.-Okt. / Vorotinsk (Russia)
Container on request
1415/1416 Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije (Russia)
– Iljezk-1 – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan)
Container on request
Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije (Russia)
– Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Karakalpak (Uzbekistan)
– Galaba (Afghanistan)
Muuga – Kojdula (Estonia) – Pechory-Pskovskije (Russia)
209
No. of Train Route Train
Characteristics
Run
Frequency
– Togliatti / Zhigulewskoje More
1418/1417
“Baltic-
Transit”
Muuga – Valga (Estonia) – Resekne (Latvia) – Sebezh –
Ozinki (Russia) – Aktobe – Saryagash (Kazakhstan) –
Chukursaj (Uzbekistan)
Container on request
Muuga – Valga (Estonia) – Resekne (Latvia) – Sebezh
(Russia) – Semiglavy Mar (Kazakhstan) – Almaty-1
(Kazakhstan)
Muuga – Valga (Estonia) – Resekne (Latvia) – Sebezh
(Russia) – Semiglavy Mar (Russia) – Oasis (Kazakhstan) –
Karakalpak (Uzbekistan) – Galaba (Afghanistan)
1420/1419
“Baltic-
Transit-2”
Muuga – Narva (Estonia) – Ivangorod-Narvskij (Russia) –
Petropavlovsk – Almaty-1 (Kazakhstan) / Dostyk (China) Container on request
Muuga / Paldiski – Narva (Estonia) – Ivangorod-Narvskij
(Russia) – Petropavlovsk – Lugovaja (Kazakhstan) –
Alamedin (Kyrgyzstan)
Muuga – Narva (Estonia) – Ivangorod-Narvskij (Russia) –
Jekaterinburg-Tov. / Blotschnaja (Russia)
Muuga / Paldiski – Narva (Estonia) – Ivangorod-Narvskij
(Russia) – Petropavlovsk – Saryagash (Kazakhstan) –
Chukursaj (Uzbekistan)
A positive tendency of an increase
in container freight shipment quantity under the use of unified CIM/SMGS consignment note has
been noticeable, that
testifies to the efficiency of its application in the international traffic between Europe and Asia.
See p. 2.3.3.2, 2.3.3.3
212
III. MAIN OBSTACLES HAMPERING THE EURO-ASIAN TRANSPORT LINKAGES
DEVELOPMENT
III.1. General overview
During the Phase I of the project the main Euro-Asian road, rail and inland water transport
routes, transshipment points and ports were selected. Projects had been prioritized in order to
focus on improvement the certain routes.
311 projects proposed by the participating countries have been evaluated during Phase II of the
EATL project from the standpoint of their value to connect Asia and Europe. The assessment of
appropriate investment needs was undertaken which formed the basis of the updated EATL
Investment Plan.
An enormous work had been done by the governments of EATL countries to implement these
decisions and plans. As a result, the current infrastructure seems to generally support the existing
transportation flows, whereas the remaining missing links and the upgrade of existing
infrastructure is in the focal point of the national transport strategies and the international
programs.
At the same time, the existence of high-level transport infrastructure – railways, roads, inland
waterways - is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for efficient and competitive transport
routes serving the trade lanes.
Numerous obstacles and bottlenecks along transport routes occur disrupting the traffic and goods
flows. These obstacles can be divided into two groups: physical and non-physical barriers.
Physical barriers occur due to of natural reasons, technical and technological inconsistency,
poor infrastructure maintenance, shortage of network sections/nodes capacity. A special type of
physical barrier is the absence of particular section of transport network or certain object (bridge,
intermodal terminal, logistic center, etc.) that could obviously improve the conditions for
transportation and trade.
Non-physical barriers represent lack of proper policies, not harmonized legislation, poor
regulations and administrative procedures, lack of cross-border administrative interoperability,
non-application of trade facilitation standards and best practices, insufficient attention to
modern IT equipment for processing and data exchange unskilled personnel. Besides that, one
can not skip such issues like contradictions of state and private interests and, in some cases,
corruption. Non-physical barriers can cause enormous losses of time and money decreasing the
quality of service or even creating the serious barriers on particular trade lanes.
During the general economic crisis and the shortage of infrastructure funding the attention to
non-physical obstacles should be, probably, higher than ever. Research results demonstrate that
very often investments aimed to construct or rehabilitate infrastructure objects are way less
effective than efforts focused on procedures improvement. For example,…**Пример
эффективности устранения нефизических барьеров?
In Europe, in EU – in particular, enormous efforts have been undertaken for decades to eliminate
such barriers. This work was guided and financed within the general context of creating the
common economic space. Smooth transportation had been developed to provide smooth trade
213
and smooth distribution; the whole economic and business environment is been improved under
the “integrity” slogan.
The situation in the Central Asia is different.
The challenge of re-creating a trade and transportation environment for countries of Central
Asia - and more generally, the former Soviet Union republics - have been taken seriously for
two decades by various institutions. Visible trends for integration and harmonization are
developing in the Central Asia region. Some countries had joined the WTO; certain states have
the observer status in this organization. Eurasian Economic Union and the Customs Union
creation - as well as the numerous bilateral agreements - is the important step towards the free
trade relationships (see p.*).
At the same time, the problem is that this area does not have one single integration idea as a
general “umbrella” for regional plans, programs and projects. There is a so-called “spaghetti
bowl” situation where numerous initiatives overlap with inconsistent country membership
(figure *). Three main groups of initiatives can be shown to improve connectivity (Linn 2012):
(1) corridor-based initiatives such as the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation
(CAREC), (2) the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) supported by China, and (3) the
Eurasian Customs Union, led by Russia.
It will obviously take time to reach the goals set by numerous initiatives. Currently the key word
for the Central Asian region in sense of trade lanes is “fragmentation”.
Transport communications as well as the trade lanes are still influenced by historical “heritage”.
Transit operates over long distances and generally involves many transport providers
representing different economic systems. Border crossings disrupt the traffic and commodity
flows. The supply chain design implies numerous difficulties such as obligatory customs
brokers’ services or mandatory going through a bonded warehouse or compulsory convoying of
traffic. For these reasons, supply chains in the EATL region are especially fragmented and
vulnerable.
214
Figure **. The “Spaghetti Bowl” of Regional Organizations in Central Asia (Lynn 2012, World
Bank)
Figure * illustrates the example of imports of goods to Kazakhstan. According to Rastogi et al
(2014), this logistic scheme includes three phases:
- international transit from the Russian Federation or China into Kazakhstan by truck or rail (rail
wagons or containers), with intervention of transport companies, brokers, and forwarders;
- clearance and warehousing in one of the main cities in Kazakhstan, with intervention of brokers
and border agencies, and third-party logistics providers(3PLs) and
- distribution logistics in Kazakhstan or Central Asia, with interventions of local transport
companies.
Figure *. Scheme of imports of goods to Kazakhstan
Source: Rastogi et al (2014)
All the phases of the scheme are more or less independent and the interests of different players
overlap in a contradictory way while its implementation.
Non-physical barriers cause significant delays, increase transport and logistics costs, and
have a negative impact on visibility and reliability in the transport chain. Traders, shippers, and
transport operators face various non-physical barriers of different types and causes, one of the
main - long waiting times and queues at border crossing points (BCP) or at en-route check
points.
215
The cross-border control procedures used on particular trade lane, once acceptable, can become
outdated and start creating problems if the competing route operator had introduced modern
technologies saving time and money.
Most observers and market players argue that the major barriers for transport and trade in the
EATL region manifest themselves at the Border crossing points (BCP).
216
III.2. Border Crossing Points as bottlenecks
Several studies showed that border crossing times on EATL routes in Central Asia vary
from a number of days to a few hours, but are on average too long compared to waiting
times measured inother regions, such as South Asia and Europe[CAREC 2013, WP5 2015***].
A UNESCAP study on transit rail traffic in Asia and the Pacific point out that “average
border-crossing times in Europe are in the 30-40 minutes range”, and that “the ECE
recommendation for border stopping time is 60 minutes for international shuttle trains and 30
minutes for combined transport”.
Both transport modes, road and rail, are affected by the long delays at border crossings, but rail
delays tend to be even longer than waiting times in road transport.
The ADB CCPMM data (CAREC 2013) allows a detailed comparison of waiting times in
Central Asia at the level of individual border crossings. The report concludes that on a general
level border crossing delays on CAREC corridors have not improved since 2009. Slight
improvements can be observed for specific borders for road corridors, but rail transport
border crossing times are still extremely high ranging from 65.6 hours at Dostyk (Kazakhstan)
for cargo coming from China to the comparatively short times measured for the rail border
crossing Alat-Farap between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan where it takes only 6 hours to
clear incoming cargo.
Figure ** and ** represent CCPMM data and show that times vary substantially from one
border crossing to another.
Clearance time at the Kazakahstan-China border crossing Khorgos can take up to 28.2 hours for
goods crossing into Kazakhstan and 11.2 hours for goods going into China. Clearance time for
cargo at Tajik border points Dusti and Fatehobad with Afghanistan are, according to the
CCPMM, amongst the lowest on the CAREC corridors (5.3 hours in Dusti and 5.1 hours in
Fatehobad for incoming cargo). Waiting times at Uzbek border crossings range from 5.7 hours at
the border with Kazakhstan in the North, Keles, to 9.7 hours at another border crossing with
Kazakhstan further South, Yallama.
Border crossings waiting times and delays constitute a significant share of the overall travel time
spent by trucks and trains on EATL routes and therefore have a strong negative impact on the
attractiveness of the routes. A corridor analysis conducted by UNESCAP on the road route from
Almaty (Kazakhstan) to Berlin (Germany) via the Russian Federation (Kulin and Krasnoe),
Belarus, and Poland, revealed that 50 per cent of the transit time is spend waiting at border
crossing points between Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (3-4 days) and between the
Russian Federation and Belarus (4-7days). The overall time for the trip was 10-13 days, instead
of the 6 days that were possible, if one assumes a border crossing time of 5 hours.[Informal
document WP.5/GE.2, 2015 No 1].
Reliability factor. As it was mentioned above (see p*), one of the main requirements of supply
chains is reliability and punctuality of services. In certain cases short lead time is not among the
advantages of the certain route but logistic providers prefer this particular route because of its
stable and predictable parameters.
217
As for many EATL transport links, especially related to the Central Asian area, stability and
predictability of services are at poor level. Unpredictable delays, lowdegree of reliability, the
unpredictability of services quality and price create severe disincentives to invest andincrease
total logistics costs.
Numerous surveys [**] indicate the following manifestations of this:
Transit time can vary dramatically. “Record” lead times look very attractive for shippers but the
variations in everyday practice can be inacceptable for the market. Observers report the 40/90
days difference possible on certain routes
Shortages of rolling stock and equipment occur suddenly causing the delays. In some countries
lack of rolling stock at harvest season is typical
Custom regulations, rail tariffs and road charges can change unexpectedly
Transit controls is implemented uniformly, irrespective of the principal’s reliability and
competence;
Convoy or escort systems are applied not only against risky cargo or insecure vessels (open
trucks), but also on containers or sealed box wagons;
Obsolete freight transport rules and regulations
inadequate carnets and guarantee systems or the poor implementation of widespread transit
systems like TIR
Additional charges and fees (often at regional level) can be introduced without warning
Railways can impose shipping bans to neighbor countries or to certain points for limited capacity
reasons or to keep the rolling stock on national territory
regulatory barriers that impact the market structure and the quality of key support services
(brokers, finance, insurance and other)
Simplified border procedures that are sometimes introduced are not practical because they
require a declaration within hours of arrival - while arrival time is unpredictable.
218
Figure **. Average border crossing times, Uzbekistan road BSP, 2013
Fig. ** Average border crossing times for selected BCP, 2013
219
III.3. Barriers concerning goods transported
Customs procedures
Customs procedures are an obligatory process in all international road shipments involving
border crossings and are the greatest cause of vehicle delays on delivery routes between Asia and
Europe. Despite the World Customs Organization’s International Convention on the
Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Revised Kyoto Convention) of 1999,
the UN International Convention on the Harmonization of Frontier Controls of Goods of 1982
and the UN Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under cover of TIR
Carnets (TIR Convention, 1975), customs regulations in practice continue to differ both in terms
of requirements and procedures. In addition, there is no integrated information system or
information exchange and, in a number of transit countries, customs posts are poorly equipped
and employ out-of-date IT equipment that fails to provide data on cargo in a timely manner.
Export and import documents
The number of export documents varies enormously among EATL participating countries.
Georgia, which requests exporters to prepare only four documents, is regarded as a regional best
practice, particularly when compared to other EATL participating countries such as Tajikistan,
which requests eleven documents. Afghanistan and Uzbekistan request ten, Belarus and
Kazakhstan - nine, while Azerbaijan, China, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation require their
exporters to complete eight documents.
Good practice examples related to import documentation include Armenia requiring seven,
Bulgaria six, China five, the Republic of Moldova seven and Georgia requiring only four import
documents. In comparison, several other EATL countries require importers to complete up to ten
documents: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus and the Russian Federation. Kazakhstan requires
its importers to complete twelve documents and Uzbekistan requires eleven import documents.
In addition to the above, EATL landlocked countries are presumed to need more days to export a
container than countries with seaports: it takes on average 82 days to send an export from
Tajikistan, 76 days to send an export from Kazakhstan, 74 days to send an export from
Afghanistan and 71 and 63 days from Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyzstan, respectively. EATL best
practice countries include Georgia with 10 days, Romania with 12 days, Armenia with 13 days
and Turkey with 14 days. With regard to imports, best practices include Georgia and Romania
with 13 days, Turkey with15 days, and Bulgaria with 17 days leading the EATL region. The
highest number of days required for handling and clearing imports are in Uzbekistan, 92 days,
Tajikistan, 83 days, Afghanistan,77 days and Kazakhstan, 62 days.
220
III.4. Barriers concerning border crossing technologies and procedures
BCP infrastructure problems
Inadequately designed border-crossing point infrastructure and equipment, as well as inadequate
transport infrastructure connecting border-crossing points with transport networks, strictly
speaking, have the physical character. But their impact of creation non-physical obstacles to
international road and rail transport cannot be ignored.
Certain countries had designed and built their border-crossing points 20 years ago and these
objects still do not have proper equipment. Some border-crossing point approach roads traverse
the middle of villages, causing vehicle congestions. Often border crossings do not have enough
lanes or windows to meet the peak transport flows.
Opportunities to improve transport links and border-crossing points exist, as per the
infrastructure priority projects identified by EATL Phase I and Phase II Studies. Nevertheless,
public and private stakeholders need more exposure to international best-practice transport,
logistics and border-crossing point infrastructure design and management methods to realize the
full benefits of investment in hard infrastructure, modern non-intrusive detection equipment and
different ways to manage expensive border-crossing point assets.
BCP Process inefficiencies
Numerous government agencies are present at border crossings to control compliance with
national legislation governing immigration, taxation, environment and health protection, customs
and trade policy, transport services and vehicles, and other regulations. Control measures apply
to drivers, means of transportation, and goods, and include document checks, weighing, scanning
and measuring of vehicles, and physical inspection of the goods. These formalities take time, in
particular if the multiple agencies involved do not collaborate and share documents, and
information.
As many studies reveal, un-coordinated and repetitive intervention of numerous government
agencies on the same shipment, high level of physical inspection of the cargo, and inadequate
infrastructure and equipment characterize the border crossings in the region. The high frequency
of physical inspection of shipments and cargo at border crossings seems to be the major
bottleneck in the clearance processes.
As is reported, Kazakh customs authorities at the border crossing Khorgos, for example, do not
trust cargo documents for mixed load containers coming in from China and therefore
systematically physically inspect containers coming in from Chinato match the data with the
actual goods. Customs authorities also commonly physically inspect the shipments or at least
open the loading unit for primary visual inspection. Physical inspections do not only uphold the
individual shipment in question but also lead to congestion, as many of the equipment and
infrastructure at the border crossing do not match the growing cargo volumes and frequency of
such operations.
There are many reasons for the persistence of physical inspection. Often there is no effective risk
management system in place that allows the border staff to target their inspections onspecific,
221
high and medium risk cargo and means of transportation, while clearing the other cargo and
trucks faster without physical inspection.
Physical inspection is also an effective instrument for rent-seeking, as truck drivers and shippers
want to speed up the process. Legislation may attribute a personal responsibility for non-detected
fraud or smuggling to the border officials. Furthermore, numerous border crossing points lack
equipment for non-intrusive controls, such as scanning or weighing of containers.
And finally, many of the border clearance process requirements are duplications: identical cargo
and vehicle documents need to be presented, are reviewed and stamped by various agencies in a
sequential process. Processes and document requirements are designed from the isolated point of
view of each agency and are not optimized from the overall perspective of achieving a faster
border crossing clearance through joint operations and sharing of data.
222
III.5. Road transportation specific barriers
Bilateral and regional road transport agreements
Currently, the legal framework for undertaking international road cargo shipments between Asia
and Europe is mainly based on bilateral intergovernmental agreements on international road
transport. These govern the procedures and conditions for undertaking international shipments
and contain provisions for preferential conditions, created for carriers on a mutual basis, as well
as conditions for transborder access to markets, including stipulations for transit shipments.
Following these bilateral agreements, national bodies issue a fixed number of permits, which
grant the right to travel through the territories of the countries specified.
The transit countries, through which the Euro-Asian routes run have, currently have more than
140 bilateral agreements with countries in Europe and Asia, of which75 govern transport
between two transit states.
Although these bilateral agreements aim at “facilitating trade” and “balancing bilateral road
transport markets” the bilateral nature of the conditions complicate the transport journey when
several countries have to be crossed, or when vehicles and drivers come from different countries.
The most important “barrier issues” related to the above are the following:
- international bilateral agreements on road transport lay down differing legal conditions for
undertaking cargo shipments between pairs of individual countries. This relates both to
preferential conditions with regard to taxes and levies, as well as the existing procedures for
issuing permits;
- specific routes and border crossings are fixed by some of the bilateral agreements and therewith
limit the actual choice of transport routes for operators from foreign countries;
- the fact that quotas of permits issued have to be equally matched necessitates numerous rounds
of negotiations, while the shortage of permits leads to significant delays incurred by hauliers
before departing for an operation and/or at border crossings;
- the distribution of permits among carriers is linked in certain cases to corruption and
discrimination towards individual hauliers;
- the procedures for agreeing and issuing permits are frequently too bureaucratic and not
transparent;
- the permit schemes sometimes create complex formalities that lead to delays and
discriminatory processes. For example, Chinese truck operators arriving at the Khorgos border
crossing need to go to Almaty to obtain the permit;
- bilateral quotas are often too low, resulting in extremely high prices for road permits on
occasion.
Driver’s visa formalities
Procedures related to visa issuance also have a strong negative impact on the shipment of cargo
along EATL routes, due to the following issues:
223
- because of multiple border crossings along each proposed route, drivers will have to obtain
visas for several transit countries;
- in a number of countries, drivers’ visas are not issued at the border, but only at the Consular
Sections of their embassies in the country of the driver’s residence. This means that drivers are
forced to temporarily relinquish their passport, which leads to loss of potential working hours. In
addition, if the visa has to be processed en route in another transit state, further delays will occur.
Kyrgyz, Tajik and Turkish hauliers, for example, are faced with this problem when travelling
through Turkmenistan;
- the procedures for issuing visas are frequently discriminatory – given equal conditions, drivers
from one country obtain visas quicker and with fewer formalities than drivers from other
countries;
- the visa procedures in the transit countries are not synchronized (neither in the list of
documents required, the charges nor the length of time required for processing).
- anumber of countries do not offer long-term multi-entry visas.
- long processing times and high consular charges are a serious disincentive (for example an
entry visa for Iran takes up to two weeks to process and a transit visa is issued for a maximum of
10 days).
It is reported by market players that drivers’ visa formalities are sometimes used by national
transport authorities as protectionist measures.
Arbitrary transit charges
High transit fees and restrictive permits for international road transport are constraining intra-
Asian trade and trade with Europe. Road transit fees in certain countries in effect are charges on
access to the market rather than charges for infrastructure use. They usually discriminate
between operators from different countries, between permit and non-permit holders, and between
domestic and foreign operators. The fees are often unclear and changed without notice.
224
III.6. Rail transportation specific barriers
Railway gauge change
Just as in case of road, barriers for rail transportation most often manifest themselves at the
border crossing points. The “classic” problem for international rail transportation is the necessity
to shift from one gauge to another at certain border points.
Most of the Western European EATL countries as well as China and Afghanistan use standard
1435 mm gauge. Former Soviet Union states and Finland use the “Russian” 1520 mm gauge.
Therefore, some transfer operations are necessary. This is either the cargo transshipment
between different types of railcars or (usually in case of passenger transportation) – change of
boogies.
Trans-loading the wagons/containers and require specific facilities and equipment such as
forklifts, cranes, etc. The equipment of the border crossing points is uneven. For example,
Alashankou on the Chinese side has four trans-loading centers, each equipped with a crane that
can handle 36 tons, but Dostyk on the Kazhak side, where goods are trans-loaded when
travelling eastward, only has one trans-loading facility.
The time spent to change gauges sometimes causes significant delays. The situation worsens
when there are not enough tracks for cargo transfer or when there is a long queue of trains during
peak periods.
Railway system change
Even if the neighbor countries use one and the same railway gauge, the difference in railway
systems lead to operations at the border. “Different railway systems” here means:
- technologies (electric power system, signaling and communication, rolling stock requirements,
etc.)
- documentation (waybills, wagon lists, etc.);
- legal network accessibility for foreign locomotives/wagons/locomotive brigades;
- special requirements (for example, Chinese Railways place an armed officer on the train, which
often causes delays).
Operations caused by these differences can include:
- documentary checks for matching between consignment notes, wagon lists, and cargo
documents.
- classification and switching of wagons, forming the trains to carry the cargo transshipped at the
border crossing point. Timely availability of rolling stock seems to be a cause of long waiting
times, in particular when trains cross into Europe where different load and train length require
the splitting of trains.
- exchange of locomotives and crews;
225
- rolling stock technical inspections;
- preparation of rail transfer documents.
Delays at border crossing range from 6,5 hours at Saryagash (Kazakhstan) to 42,7hours at
Alashankou (China). The time required for break-of gauge operations ranges from 2,8 hours to
2,5hours, the classification of trains from 1,7hours to 1,2 hours, and the customs clearance from
3,7hours to 15,1hours.
226
III.7. Intermodal transportation specific barriers
The main reported specific intermodal transportation problem on the EATL routes is the ferry
crossings over the Caspian and Black Seas. Although the situation with the Black Sea ferry
crossings is currently stable, the one in the Caspian Sea is significantly more complicated.
Trucks travelling from Asiato Europe face delays due to the lack of ferry timing information, and
because ferries are primarily geared to transport railway containers (railway companies are given
preference on embarkation).
The small quota of ferry slots allocated to lorries leads to queues and lengthy delays in ports,
made worse by the short validity period of Turkmen transit visas for drivers. In view of the latter,
the development of intermodal transport linkages, coordinating road and maritime connections
over the Caspian Sea, requires particular attention in the near future.
227
III.8. Political situation
“Political” issues can be divided into two segments: caused by international or domestic political
conflicts and related to unclear or inconsistent transport and trade policy.
EATL trade and transport routes from time to time suffer from “high policies” instability.
Political conflicts amongst EATL countries lead to permanent border closures. Such changes not
only create disruptions but also increase uncertainty amongst the operators about the actual
situation and reduce the efficiency in the transport chain as contingency times are frequently
built into the schedules.
For example, the trade sanctions imposed by the EU-28 and Russia on specific goods had
negatively influenced the trade and transport situation. There are reports that some transit cargo
is refused to transit by the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation(FCS). Some
market players are intending to ‘bypass’ the sanctions regime and design long, complicated and
expensive logistics schemes.
In 2016 certain political groups blocked the transit roads in seven border regions of Ukraine
stopping Russian trucks bound to Western Europe. Russia undertook the reciprocate measures;
the incident damaged the trade badly.
The political instability of certain countries is an additional barrier to trade, and internal unrest
has in certain cases resulted in periods of closed borders (as was the case in Kyrgyzstan). Border
crossing point between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have been closed frequently in 2013 and 2014
because of border incidents. Uzbekistan frequently closes its borders with Tajikistan in the
Fergana valley for short periods, such as 10 days, for the festivities of the Independence Day.
Transport, trade and customs policies instability also is typical for the EATL region.
Governments may change the classification of a border crossing points putting in place
restrictions for cargo movement. The Kyrgyz Republic for example has re-classified the
Karamyk border crossing with Tajikistan, so that transit cargo can officially no longer exit from there
to Tajikistan. As Karamyk is an important crossing point for goods from China into Central Asia, the
border crossing point is still used for transit cargo from China but truck drivers now have to add 100
km of to their travel route to drive to the next border post to get the exit stamp on the Customs
declaration.
Many of the EATL countries are party to the TIR Convention that puts in place a common
customs transit clearance procedure and a cross-border transit guarantee, the so-called TIR
Carnets. The TIR Convention and its application by Customs authorities is crucial for Central
Asia, Eastern European and Caucasus countries and is broadly believed to be well functioning and
accepted by Customs authorities. In 2013 the Federal Russian Customs Office of Russia (FCS RF)
had introduced the limitations for Carnet TIR procedures; additional securities for Carnet TIR
holding transport are required. This decision did not only impose additional costs on international
road traffic. The entire functioning of the TIR system had been put in doubt; a lot of concern,
confusion and uncertainty with regards to the new procedure and the validity of the carnet is in place
across the market.
228
III.9. Mismatch of public and private interests
The opinion reflected in several reports [*] based on field visits to border-crossing points and
interviews with national and international exporting and importing companies is that the interests
of private industry, government, transport and border-control agencies do not match.
The Ministries of Transport and border-control agencies are concerned with border-crossing
security, safety and revenue collection issues; in certain cases, their concerns are addressed
through a control approach that does not balance them with the needs for national trade
facilitation. Sometimes they are not in the position to assist foreign operators and/or states who
can benefit from fast and cheap transit.
On the other hand, private companies engaged in supply chains try to avoid delays in operations
along their chosen supply routes, paying extra costs as a result. Their staff focuses efforts on
tracking their shipments and search for expediting solutions by interfacing with government and
border-crossing point officials. Some private companies do not expect policy, procedure and
management change and continue to trade despite the challenges, passing on additional
transaction costs to the consumer.
229
IV. EATL: LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE
The initial SWOT-analysis of the EATL transport communications was developed during Phase
II of the EATL-project to give the overall picture of a project. Results of SWOT analysis help to
gain maximum benefits from strengths, outline the ways to compensate weaknesses, minimize
threats and take the greatest possible advantage of opportunities.
The current section of the report contains the upgraded version of the SWOT analysis of the
EATL project reflecting the changes and trends identified in the course of the project Phase III.
The following are considered to be EATL inland transport connection strengths:
EATL inland transport routes can often provide faster delivery than maritime routes for the
transport of goods between the EU and the Asia-Pacific region.
EATL inland transport routes are an important transport option for EATL landlocked developing
countries in the region for their access to international markets and their participation in
globalization which means the constant objective attention to their development.
There are unutilized capacities along some parts of the EATL road and railway routes running
East-West and North-South.
Some EATL routes are currently the preferred way for certain countries along the EATL to reach
their major trade partners.
EATL routes are the integral part and physical extensions of the Trans-European Transport
Networks, Pan-European Corridors, AGR, AGC, European Agreement on Important
International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations (AGTC), Asian Highway
(AH) network, Trans-Asian Railway (TAR), Trans-European Motorway(TEM), Trans-European
Railway (TER), TRACECA and other related corridors and networks of high significance for
Europe and Asia. Thus their development is within the general trend of Eurasian trade
facilitation supported by numerous international initiatives.
There is political commitment for the development of EATL inland transport routes expressed by
concerned governments and various international and subregional organizations promoting
related initiatives.
Local partnerships are being developed along the inland EATL routes among key players,
including non-governmental organizations and bodies. In principle these partnerships
Since a good portion of EATL routes are in the planning and design phase, they can be
constructed according to the best available technological and environmental standards and
practice.
The following are considered to be general weaknesses observed on EATL inland transport links
(not necessarily present in all the EATL countries):
The costs of goods transportation via inland EATL routes are generally too high compared to
competing routes containing the maritime transport leg. The reason for that is not only the
objective transport-economic factors but also the (sometimes) unreasonably high transit tariffs,
fees and charges that pursue, primarily, the fiscal objectives;
230
The quality of transport and logistic services across the EATL corridors is rather low compared
to that of maritime routes and usually does not match the market standards of developed
countries;
Intermodal transportation is generally poorly developed across the EATL region, mainly in the
Central-Asian part of it. There are relatively few intermodal services provided on the continental
Euro-Asian market; intermodal logistic centers are rear on the transport infrastructure of the
region;
Numerous physical and non-physical barriers along the inland EATL routes render transport
operations difficult, costly, time-consuming, unpredictable and uncertain. These include, in
particular:
inadequate, underdeveloped and poorly maintained road and rail networks with many
bottlenecks and missing links on them;
cumbersome and inefficient control procedures leading to long delays at border crossing points;
multiple cargo checks en route, mandatory transit convoys, numerous agencies at borders
requesting to approve documentation and numerous fiscal charges to be paid at certain points
along the routes.
many border posts are poorly equipped and some are closed
transport restrictions, rules and procedures are frequently changed without notice.
The market institutions as well as the conditions for competitive business development are often
underdeveloped in EATL countries, particularly:
market oriented railway reforms are not in place and many national railway systems are state-
owned and keep their monopoly position. As a result rail rates are uncompetitive, inflexible and
often contain hidden charges. The intentions of private operators to arrange competitive railway
services often has no legal basis;
although many truck operators along EATL countries are now private, transport monopolies are
still in place in some counties, operating under high tariffs and offering inadequate levels of
service;
the institute of freight forwarders, cargo integrators, 3 PL providers and other market players
facilitating trade and transportation is not adequately developed in many countries(as well as the
legal base for their activities)
The level of international co-ordination and harmonization across the EATL routes is not high
enough to provide smooth traffic of vehicles and goods. In particular:
there is no harmonized customs transit regime along all EATL routes;
international road permit quotas are in force along EATL, while the grant of visas to professional
drivers is cumbersome and costly;
the heterogeneity of existing transport and transit rules and regulations along the inland EATL
routes makes monitoring of the EATL corridors situation quite difficult
231
some regional transport initiatives are aimed at regional competition rather at co-operation
within the EATL context;
intentions towards co-operative development of infrastructure are not adequately supported by
mutual practical steps, in particular - investments
Widespread corruption along some EATL road routes not only forces international operators to
make illegal payments but also makes officially declared procedures unreliable.
There are safety concerns along parts of the EATL road routes and international operators lack
security.
Limited institutional and human resource capacities exist.
Generally low level of investment potential of many EATL countries is currently aggravated by
the economic crisis that compels the governments to fulfil primarily urgent needs like health,
housing, pensions, etc.
Due to low transport network development and insufficient amount of alternative routes (in
comparison with the European region) one particular weak segment or missing link in one
country can render a whole EATL route economically unviable for international transport.
The following are considered to be EATL inland transport connection opportunities:
In a long term, continuous globalization is expected to increase the transport of goods between
Europe and Asia. The rapid growth of China and India generates greater transport demand and
thus new opportunities for inland EATL routes.
Several events and trends are expected to promote the development of EATL routes, particularly:
The start of New Silk Way initiative
Creation of the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan
Accession of the Russian Federation (2012), Tajikistan (2013) and Kazakhstan (2015) to WTO;
Economic reforms in certain EATL countries improving the business climate
Developing trade among EATL countries, in particular between landlocked developing countries
in Central Asia and their transit developing neighbors
Certain infrastructure projects are being implemented improving the transport-logistic network
within the EATL area
A portion of “time-sensitive” transit can be redirected through inland EATL routes. Introduction
of “slow steaming” on the maritime routes is expected to enlarge this segment
Further expansion of universal railway legal regime, in particular – enlarging coverage of the
CIM/SMGS consignment note along EATL railway routes would facilitate rail EATL transport.
Railway reforms in certain EATL countries improve the environment for long-haul block-trains
Growing practical experience in long-haul container train operation
232
Best decisions and practices in facilitating border-crossing procedures are generalized, described
and open to implementation
Increased efforts and progress in regional cooperation and integration among countries offer new
opportunities to address existing challenges in a coordinated way.
The following are considered to be EATL inland transport connection threats:
The increasing trend of economic nationalism, persisting conflicts and political instability along
some parts of EATL routes
The extremely low competitive transport costs of maritime routes that maintain them as the most
attractive transport option for the majority of supply chains in Euro-Asian trade
Global warming and the expected opening of the Arctic North-West passage to container traffic
may result in even more competitive maritime routes
Cost-reducing innovations in the air transport sector also offer challenges.
EATL Roadmap to 2030 (“Challenges – Opportunities – Solutions” matrix)
Scope: Next steps on EATL development. Road map on EATL development in the form of
matrix: “Challenges – Opportunities – Solutions”. Special attention to: priority actions of the
Vienna Program for landlocked countries (VPoA) and recommendations of the UN resolutions
on transport and transit corridors.
This section describes proposed steps on national, regional and multilateral level aimed to further
EATL development.
The main goal of Project Phase III is to identify the measures that will make the EATL overland
links operational.
In fact, these links are already functioning accumulating the everyday experience of trade and
transportation over the surface routes connecting Asia and Europe. In this way, the task is to
generalize this experience and formulate the coordinated measures that will facilitate the further
growth of EATL routes utilization.
Table * presents the Challenges-Opportunities- Solutions matrix for EATL area further
development. Main project challenges are put together with the opportunities identified during
the SWOT analysis.
The principle solutions indicated in the table are itemized below in the form of the
recommendations in the following spheres:
- policies;
- facilitation, procedures, and institutions;
- infrastructure development.
233
Table *.Challenges-Opportunities- Solutions matrix for EATL area development
Challenges
Opportunities POLICIES FACILITATION,
PROCEDURES AND
INSTITUTIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE
In long-term perspective –
increasing trade volumes
between Europe and Asia.
Actually developing trade
between the EATL countries
Continue the activities within the EATL
project in co-ordination with other
similarly focused initiatives
Movement towards the universal
legal regimes and administrative
procedures across the Eurasian area
based on best international
practices
Eliminating bottlenecks and missing
links on the potentially most
effective overland transit routes and
trade routes in the EATL area
Market-oriented economic
reforms in certain EATL
countries
Analyzing and dissemination of best
decisions and models in the sphere of
international trade and transport
Introduction of best international
practices in new-adopted trade and
transport legislation
Encouraging introduction of public-
private –cooperation and other
market-oriented forms of
infrastructure projects financing
Increased efforts and progress
in regional cooperation and
integration. Development of
series of regional initiatives and
agreements. Further
implementation of
infrastructure projects in the
EATL area
Improve the monitoring and high-level
coordination of regional initiatives,
programs and projects
Inter-harmonizing provisions of
regional and bilateral agreements
Coordinating of infrastructure
programs and projects. Developing
the “system approach” to
infrastructure programs developing
the transport and logistic
infrastructure in the interests of the
entire economy
Growing practical experience in
long-haul overland trade, in
particular – in container train
operation
Develop co-operation at the business
level together with intergovernmental
cooperation
Developing institutions and
procedures facilitating the long-
haul container trains operation and
related activities
Advanced development of railway
and logistic infrastructure providing
effective container transportation
Relative growth of the “time- Encouraging development of the freight- Paying special attention to Paying special attention to
234
sensitive” segment of cargo in
the Eurasian trade
forwarding and high level logistic
providers segment
procedures accelerating trade and
transport operations
infrastructure projects providing
time-effective transportation
Railway reforms in certain
EATL countries. Expected
expansion of universal railway
legal regimes
Put railway reforms among highest
policy priorities
Introduction of best international
experience in newly adopted
railway legislation
Introduction of effective mechanisms
of railway infrastructure
development in reform programs
235
V. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
POLICIES
EATL seems to be the most comprehensive of all initiatives aimed at facilitation of trade
and transportation across the Eurasian region. Thus it seems reasonable to continue the
activities under the EATL “umbrella” in the format that will be found appropriate by the
EATL countries
Continue the activities within the EATL project in co-ordination with other similarly focused
initiatives
accede to relevant international, regional and subregional conventions and other legal
instruments related to transit transport and trade facilitation
formulate national transport policies including transit and border crossing provisions with the
participation of all relevant stakeholders
integrate EATL achievements in national transport plans and programs
Analyzing and dissemination of best decisions and models in the sphere of international trade
and transport
carry out studies on transport-logistical competitiveness based on internationally recognized
methodologies
promote policies helping national firms, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to
participate better in international trade and transport
simplify and synchronize visa issuing procedures, introduce long-term multi-entry visas where
possible
Improve the high-level coordination and monitoring of regional initiatives, programs and
projects
improve the monitoring of infrastructure developments, execution of transport facilitation plans,
transport corridors functioning
improve collection and dissemination of transport and trade statistics and other relevant data
collaborate on prompt exchanging trade and transport data between the neighbor countries across
the EATL routes
promote harmonization of regional policies, in particular – within regional initiatives and
programs - so as to strengthen regional synergy, competitiveness and regional value chains
Support national transport and trade facilitation action plans and committees with participation
of all the groups of stakeholders
develop the harmonized approach in trade and transport activities monitoring and forecasting to
produce reliable commonly used forecasts
236
Develop co-operation at the administrative and business level together with intergovernmental
cooperation
continue and enhance coordination and cooperation of national agencies and bodies responsible
for all kinds of border and customs controls and procedures
promote involvement of transport business associations in public-private partnership, training
and knowledge-exchange projects
establish or strengthen national committees on trade and transport facilitation, with the
involvement of all relevant stakeholders
introduce the early-warning systems to inform the countries along transport corridors about the
changes in the administrative regimes, charges, infrastructure restrictions, etc.
Encouraging development of the freight-forwarding and logistic providers segment
provide legal conditions for market competition development in the transport and logistic sector
undertake efforts to build human capacity in the logistic sector (training, educational programs,
international exchange, etc.)
encourage establishing the associations and other non-governmental structures expressing the
interests of market players involved in international trade and transportation
Put railway reforms among highest policy priorities
whatever model of the railway reform is used, monopolism in operations should not be in place
in the industry
create the favorable conditions for independent national and foreign entities to undertake railway
operations
provide the mechanisms for prompt changing railway tariffs according to the market situation
provide necessary market conditions in neighbor segments (e.g., in wagon manufacturing) to
avoid lack of equipment and services used by railways
FACILITATION, PROCEDURES AND INSTITUTIONS
During the crisis times high-scale infrastructure investments seem to be a serious burden
for many EATL countries. That is why institutional reforms and trade facilitation should
be the leading priority in comparison with infrastructure projects
Movement towards the universal legal regimes and administrative procedures across the
Eurasian area based on best international practices
standardize trade and transport documents
237
encourage shift to electronic documents
implement or scale up trade facilitation initiatives such as single-stop inspections, single
windows for documentation, electronic payment, etc.
avoid fixing certain routes or border crossing points for international trade and traffic
avoid discrimination in visa regimes for drivers; offer long-term and multi-entry visas
avoid arbitrary derogations or limitations of international agreements concerning trade and
transportation
use standardized practical tools to identify the obstacles to trade and transport flows, e.g. the
World Bank Trade and Transport Facilitation Assessment: A Practical Toolkit for Country
Implementation
Introduction of best international practices in new-adopted trade and transport legislation
gradually liberalize road transport services, taking into account specific circumstances in
particular countries
introduce the rule of obligatory “early warning” about the changes in rules, tariffs, and
procedures related to international trade and transport
provide special easy control procedures for market players with good reputation
limit compulsory convoy or escort by high risk commodities only
implement the best practices in using internationally adopted regimes and procedures like TIR
implement legislation allowing the operation of long-and-heavy road vehicles across the main
trade corridors and in the hunterland of logistic centers
Inter-harmonizing provisions of regional and bilateral agreements
exchange information and experience of implementation of trade and transport agreements
promote multilateral and regional permit systems for road transport aimed to eliminate
quantitative limits and focused on provision of quality and safety of road transport services
strive to avoid bilateral agreements when and where multilateral agreements exist
Developing institutions and procedures facilitating the long-haul container train operation and
related activities
promote a better business environment so as to assist all the interested parties to organize and
operate long-haul container trains
encourage the establishment of container pools across the overland operators
encourage organizing of training programs and inter-railway staff exchange programs
organize research work analyzing the successful cases and the failures in overland container train
operations
238
introduce the simplified border procedures providing all the necessary conditions for their actual
efficiency for market players
analyze the possibility of developing “Terminal services standard minimum” for use by the
terminal staff across the EATL corridors - in a form of recommendations or “Best practices
manual”
Paying special attention to procedures accelerating trade and transport operations
streamline and simplify border crossing procedures and practices and harmonize rules and
regulations, including accession to relevant international conventions
identify non-physical barriers and evaluate their influence according to agreed common
benchmarking procedures
use available customs transit systems (e.g. TIR) to expedite transport and transit operations
avoid maintaining, seeking or adopting any arrangements establishing quotas or other
quantitative restrictions to international transportation
simplify visa requirements and formalities for personnel involved in international transportation
remove where possible additional internal checkpoints
record and analyze the reasons for border-crossing point congestion, queuing and time delays
develop and implement the system of border-crossing point Performance Indicators to
benchmark the current situation and to evaluate the results of investment projects and changes in
procedures
decrease the number of documents necessary for export or import procedures
introduce optimization of border crossing procedures on the basis of through joint operations and
sharing of data
Introduction of best international experience in newly adopted railway legislation
follow the provisions of the Joint declaration expressing willingness to create a common legal
regime for rail traffic across Asia and Europe of 2013
co-operate in the development of general conditions of transport for Euro-Asian rail
transport(GTC EurAsia)
introduce the CIM-COTIF waybill as a transport document for international rail transportation
introduce competition within the railway sector using the most effective international models
envisage the legal conditions for the access of foreign rail operators to the national network, at
least, in container train operations
INFRASTRUCTURE
To date, the EATL transport network has been very nearly formed and proved its
efficiency foe certain trade lanes and commodities. Numerous initiatives, programmes and
projects are undertaken to improve the infrastructure in the EATL region. It seems
239
reasonable to focus the efforts on coordination, standardizing of infrastructure parameters
and implementing the most effective “point-focused” projects
Eliminating bottlenecks and missing links on the potentially most effective overland transit
routes and trade routes in the EATL area
Focus at identifying and remove obvious physical bottlenecks rather than at high-scale
infrastructure projects
Road and rail transport should complement each other rather than compete in the Eurasian
corridors
Logistic centers development in the nodes of the EATL corridors should be envisaged
Encourage the development of international logistic hubs
Encouraging introduction of public-private –cooperation and other market-oriented forms of
infrastructure projects
develop the necessary policies and regulatory frameworks to promote private sector involvement
in infrastructure development
promote enabling environment to attract foreign direct infrastructure investments
Coordinating of infrastructure programs and projects. Using the “system approach” to
infrastructure programs developing the transport and logistic infrastructure in the interests of the
entire economy
focus at developing the limited number of transport corridors across the national territory in
order to gain the maximum efficiency and economies of scale
encourage creating transport-logistic and industrial clusters in order to fostering knowledge
networks and links among companies
promote economies of scale for transport systems through intermodal transport development,
creation of dry ports, logistic centers, etc.
provide development of sea ports coordinated with the development of port hinterland
connections and the infrastructural objects located in the hinterland and directly linked to sea
ports
motivate the developers and operators to co-operate in creation of high-scale multipurpose
logistic sites serving domestic, international and transit trade and transportation
create logistic centers and dry ports as market-oriented nodes of supply chains improving the
competitiveness of the entire EATL system
harmonize the axle limits along the main road routes to provide the effective road transportation
240
Further improve GIS applications and develop tools to support “smart” decisions in
transportation and supply chains
Advanced development of railway and logistic infrastructure providing effective container
transportation
encourage development of multy-purpose logistic centers with intermodal terminals
development of effective reloading capacities for containers and other intermodal units in the
gauge-changing points
promote co-operation of railway and port authorities/operators in order to create effective
railway intermodal terminals “on the quay” to ensure fast and cost-effective transshipment of
containers
promote the cross-border cooperation of railway infrastructure administration to provide the
harmonized technologies for container trains’ border crossing
replace the boogie change procedures for container trains to effective container transshipment
Paying special attention to infrastructure projects providing time-effective transportation
Ensure technical and operational interoperability of railway and road systems of neighbor
countries
Develop project in sea ports aimed at improvement of sea-rail interoperability to ensure the
synergy between the two modes
encourage harmonization of railway technological standards and road axle load limits to
facilitate regional connectivity, where feasible
implement IT-systems to ensure transparency in border crossing procedures, customs and transit
transport rules, regulations, fees and charges
upgrade border crossing point equipping them with modern surveillance methods for security
(vehicle scanning equipment, etc.), as well as the necessary IT infrastructure and supportive
systems
develop a Border-Crossing Point Design Guide for border crossing points of different types and
scales based on BCP best-practice examples
Introduction of effective mechanisms of railway infrastructure development in reform programs
establishing the independent bodies responsible for infrastructure management and development
introduction of adequate infrastructure fees within the railway industry
encourage private participation in development and operation of certain infrastructure objects
(terminals, railway logistic centers, railway sections built and operated by private companies)
242
LIST OF SOURCES
1. World Air Cargo Forecast 2014–2015. Boeing, Seattle, 2014
2. UNCTAD, 2015. Trade and development report
3. Rastogi, Cordula, and Jean-François Arvis. 2014. The Eurasian Connection: Supply-
Chain Efficiency along the Modern Silk Route through Central Asia. Directions in
Development. Washington, DC: World Bank
4. John Arnold. 2005. Best Practices in Corridor Management. Washington, DC: World
Bank
5. Kunaka, Charles, and Robin Carruthers (2014). Trade and Transport Corridor
Management Toolkit. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0143-3.
License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO
6. Informal document WP.5/GE.2, 2015. No 5// Information from participants on recent
developments in transport infrastructure priority projects on EATL routes
7. Informal document WP.5/GE.2, 2015 No 1// Identification of cargo flows on the Euro-
Asian transport links. Euro Asian Transport Links. Transport flows and non-physical
barriers
8. AGTC (2003), cited in UNESCAP Transit Transport Issues in Landlocked and
Developing Transit Countries. Landlocked Developing Countries Series No1, (New York
2003), p. 35
9. TRACECA Project (2003): Harmonization of Border Crossing Procedures,
Recommendation of Border Harmonization Evaluation Workshop, cited in UNESCAP
Transit Transport Issues in Landlocked and Developing Transit Countries. Landlocked
Developing Countries Series No1, (New York 2003), p. 35
10. CAREC (2013) CARECCPMM Corridor Performance Measurement and Monitoring
Annual Report, 2013
11. UNESCAP Transit Transport Issues in Landlocked and Developing Transit Countries.
LandlockedDevelopingCountriesSeries No1, (NewYork 2003)
12. Linn, Johannes. 2012. “Central Asian Regional Integration and Cooperation: Realityor
Mirage?” In Eurasian Integration Yearbook 2012, 96–117. Almaty:
EurasianDevelopment Bank
13. Euro-Asian transport: maritime ports - challenges and opportunities. Informal document
WP.5/GE.2 (2015) No. 1.
14. InformaldocumentWP.5/GE.2 (2015) No. 2 Сопоставительный анализ
продолжительности и издержек железнодорожных и морских перевозок между
Европой и Азией по выбранным маршрутам евро-азиатских транспортных связей
15. European Parliament. THE EVOLVING ROLE OF EU SEAPORTSIN GLOBAL
MARITIME LOGISTICS –CAPACITIES, CHALLENGES ANDSTRATEGIES.
STUDY. 2009
243
16. UNECE. Hinterland connections of Seaports. 2010
17. CEFIR study
18. EvgenyVinokurov, Director, Centre for Integration Studies, Eurasian Development Bank
Transport Corridors of the Silk Road Economic Belt across the Eurasian Economic
Union: Preliminary Estimates for Transportation Capacity and Investment Needs
(Working paper)
19. Saroj Kumar Jha, Regional Country Director for Central Asia, Word Bank. Presentation at Third China Round Table on WTO Accessions. Post Accession “Maximizing the
Benefits of WTO Membership and Global Economic Integration”, Dushanbe, Tajikistan,
June 2-4, 2015
20. Hubay Government official site.
http://en.hubei.gov.cn/news/newslist/201601/t20160106_773725.shtml
21. Europlatforms. European Logistic Platforms Association. Official site
http://www.europlatforms.eu/
22. EvgenyVinokurov, Director, Centre for Integration Studies, Eurasian Development Bank.
Working Paper Transport Corridors of the Silk Road Economic Belt across the Eurasian
Economic Union: Preliminary Estimates for Transportation Capacity and Investment
Needs. – 2016. - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2771587
23. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION FOR INTER-NATIONAL CARRIAGE
BY RAIL (OTIF). 25th Session. Work on the unification of Euro-Asian rail freight
transport law. Point of information.
http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/04_recht/03_CR/03_CR_
25_2014/CR_25_5-1_e_Information_Unification_Eurasian_freight_railway_law.pdf
24. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
2015 REPORT. Brussels, 10.11.2015 - SWD(2015) 214 final
25. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. MONTENEGRO 2015 REPORT.
Brussels, 10.11.2015 - SWD(2015) 210 final
26. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. SERBIA 2015 REPORT. Brussels,
10.11.2015 - SWD(2015) 211 final
27. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 2015 REPORT. Brussels, 10.11.2015 - SWD(2015) 212
final
28. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. TURKEY 2015 REPORT. Brussels,
10.11.2015 - SWD(2015) 216 final
29. Railway Reform in South East Europe and Turkey. On the Right Track? Document of the
World Bank. ReportNo. 60223-ECA - March 2011
30. Hong Ju. Railway Sector Reform in China: controversy and problems. Journal of
Contemporary China. Volume 24, 2015 - Issue 96 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670564.2015.1030957?journalCode=cjcc20
244
31. Report on the activities of the Organisation for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD) in
2015. Warsaw, 2016
32. Draft Report on Documentation and Procedures for the Development of Seamless Rail-
Based Intermodal Transport Services in Northeast and Central Asia. UNESCAP, 2016
33. Information on container trains operating with regular itineraries between Europe and
Asia. Transmitted by the Organization for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD).
Informal document WP.5/GE.2 (2015) No. 3/Rev.1, 17 May 2016